Why Machiavelli Bothers Us

My company is sending me to some executive management training this year, a program that includes several seminars throughout the year and a collection of about 30 books to read. So the other day a big box arrived at my house with all these books in it. Amongst all the how-to-be-a-great-leader style books, one stood out: The Prince by Machiavelli.

I've always been intrigued by Machiavelli, knowing the reputation his name carries as a colloquialism for getting things done in somewhat unscrupulous ways. I'm nearly done with the book now and have started to contemplate why this man's ideas have been so controversial and haunt our sense of ethical behavior even today.

The book talks a great deal about how princes (a.k.a. leaders) and their people, and other princes interrelate, but within the pages are two questions for which Machiavelli is most famous:

1. As a leader is it better to be loved or feared?
2. Does the end justify the means? (i.e. If the result of an action is generally good, does it matter if some not-so-good actions were required to achieve this result?)

These questions still pop up today--and they bother us, as would other elements of Machiavelli's advice to leaders in his book if people were to read all of it. By the way, Machiavelli's answers are as disturbing as the questions: it's better to be feared than loved, and yes the end justifies the means. We instinctively don't like these answers but yet as a culture we cannot dismiss the man or his questions. Why? What holds us so captive? It was these questions, rather than Machiavelli's, that drew my curiosity.

It is my belief that Machiavelli's ideas crash head-long into some key ideas of the Enlightenment, upon which much of our culture is based. This collision creates the distaste we have for his questions and especially his answers. Yet we don't simply dismiss Machiavelli because there is also something that rings true in his question that resonates in our souls. Let's unpack this ethical struggle a bit and the issues will become quite clear.

The Enlightenment was about the ascendancy of human reason as the authoritative basis of truth. If we could reason through a problem it's inherent truth could be discovered. This thinking continues to pervade today. For example most Western diplomats would likely ascribe to the view that if two countries explained their interests reasonably enough they may not come to agreement, but they would come to understand each other and have principled negotiations.

Sounds lovely, but there's a problem with this view. Enlightenment assumes the world is populated with rational people, or at least people who value reason. I don't know Machiavelli's religious piety but he certainly had a Biblical view of mankind: we're a fallen race and whenever possible will act according to our own selfish desires. Enlightenment assumes the best in others and Machiavelli assumes the worst. Perhaps this is the nexus of our struggle with him. We very much want to believe the Enlightenment world view but a casual survey of the real world would suggest Machiavelli's assumption was correct. So we can't dismiss Machiavelli's questions, but we don't like them either.

But what about Machiavelli's answers? Enlightenment thinking presumes that you, personally, are basically a good, if not perfect, person. Machiavelli again makes no such assumption, and his prescriptions are uncomfortably amoral in nature--ethically flexible, if you prefer. His arguments promote this flexibility as a necessary asset to properly govern and lead people. This certainly flies in the face of the ideal of a democracy based on Enlightenment principles. Once again as consumers of ideas we are torn between what we want to believe about ourselves and what we observe to be apparent truth.

Into this mix of my curiousity I stir my own Christian world view and see error in both of the others. The Enlightenment assumes man's reason is authoritative truth, but the problem is that Machiavelli was right. We are not creatures of reason but creatures of selfish pride. Machiavelli's questions were spot-on. However a Christian would take issue with his answers. Machiavelli believed that to be loved without fear and to be ethically pure were both weaknesses. Perhaps they are, but a Christian's life is underwritten by a living God active through his or her life. The individual Christian is still a selfish and prideful person, but they commit in faith to the irrational idea that to be weak in ourselves is to be strong in Christ. This means that a Christian believes that God will work through people or circumstance such that projecting their own strength is unnecessary and would even be a weaker position. (Do you think Jesus would find anything new in all the "servant leadership" buzz making the rounds in corporate circles lately?)

Non-Christians in the western world are left with a dilemma. They can forfeit ambition to put their full faith in an Enlightenment ideal that has serious observable cracks in its execution, or they must to some degree become amoral to achieve great ambitions, thus having to admit to themselves that they are indeed a sinful, prideful person, and live with that knowledge. What a heavy burden. This is why we don't like Machiavelli--and why we can't stop reading his book.

In Defense of WalMart

There's a lot of bad feelings out there towards America's largest retailer. People argue it kills the "mom and pop" businesses and contributes to suburban sprawl. I'm not so convinced--in fact I think there's a lot of good WalMart does that goes under appreciated.

First let me say I don't work for WalMart and have no relationship with them at all, except I buy stuff there. I don't think they're perfect and I'm sure if we dig we won't have to go far to find genuine controversy, as with any big organization. But I do think people slam WalMart unfairly.

One of the most common complaints people seem to have with WalMart is that it pressures the locally-owned small retailers out of business. This is bad, the thinking goes, because it takes away good jobs and replaces them with "McJobs" at WalMart.

This line of thinking has a big problem, namely that mom 'n pop main street stores were in decline long before WalMart showed up. And while most WalMart jobs are certainly unglamorous low-level jobs there is a management track. If you worked at a mom 'n pop store and weren't a relative of the owner then good luck moving up the ranks at all.

The truth is that the only businesses WalMart forces under are weak ones that can't adapt. Too harsh? I've noticed that WalMarts have a "reef effect". Around them spring up strip malls full of little locally-owned stores and restaurants. Of course if you want to live you had better be smart enough to stay out of WalMart's way!

In my neighborhood WalMart opened a superstore (groceries). Immediately the incumbent stores, Albertsons, Tom Thumb, and Kroger started to compete. Albertsons tried to stick to basic groceries and compete on price. They didn't last long--store closed. Kroger thrives by moving its product coverage outside of WalMart's, which carries lots of basics but few extended product lines. Tom Thumb does well by moving upmarket and focusing on service. You can indeed compete, or at least coexist, with WalMart if you're smart.

Another example: my local Ace Hardware store. Its located less than a mile from WalMart and Home Depot yet it does good business. Why? Service for one. I don't have look over acres of store for help. It also works because I can run in and out faster than a big-box. I would argue that both retail models have their advantages and efficiencies in the community and needn't be mutually exclusive.

I also don't agree that big-box retail contributes to sprawl. These big box stores like WalMart are full of products, like the old general stores. So if they didn't exist this product would be distributed over a wider area in smaller shops. Centralizing everything in a contained retail area may highlight the large big-box stores and make them an easy target for simplistic scorn but to my eye its more efficient than scattering the same product volume all over town. Logically that's why the model is successful. Carry the argument further to say these big box retail areas provide a nexus around which apartments and housing are grouped. If the WalMarts were gone then what would group suburban development at all? You really would have some big sprawl issues then.

Then there's health care. WalMart has done a lot to drive down the cost of generic drugs and expand their use. The company is now preparing a pilot program to put clinics in some stores. I see this as the future of basic health care. The government seems useless to address our problems so it will take a WalMart to make any meaningful change. If people who currently have no health insurance can someday go to their WalMart clinic and see a doctor for $30 or $40 then isn't that much better than where where we are now?

WalMart isn't perfect. I have issues with how their purchasing power carries capitalism to an extreme by supporting Chinese manufacturing and the many anti-competitive aspects that entails. There are many reports of employment issues in the media. I do think however that they deserve credit for the good they do that often goes unnoticed by those so quick with their words to tear them down.