Machiavelli and Dirty Hands in American Politics

Machiavelli and Dirty Hands in American Politics

Nick Boyd

As election day looms, the war of words between Republicans and Democrats is heating up. With both sides grappling for an advantage, Machiavellian tactics are alive and well in American politics. Both candidates undoubtedly believe they have a better plan for the future of "the state" than their counterpart. In that sense, their quests for power are not entirely about self-interest but rather the betterment of the nation, thereby meeting an important Machiavellian criterion.

Having established that fact, Machiavelli would advise Romney and Obama to do whatever is necessary to gain/retain power. Both candidates recognize that relying on an unbiased populace and media is dangerously fortun-dependent. Therefore, thhroughout American history, politicians have always been prepared to dirty their hands in the process of defeating their political opponent. Whether it be unsubstantiated advertisements, low-blows in debates, or dirty money, candidates have always employed a diverse arsenal in eviscerating their opponents. If you're a candidate, you have to be unreasonably careful - you can't even tie your dog to the roof of your car anymore (sarcasm).

Above: "He asked dad to show his tax returns..."

Machiavellian tactics are most evident in political advertisements. The truth goes out the window and suddenly we are barraged with a storm of finger pointing and character distortions. Candidates understand that this is necessary to the sustenance of their power and the resulting glory of the state. Opposition must be crushed by whatever means necessary. It would seem that Obama and Romney both received pep talks from Walzer prior to the campaign, as neither are concerned with the filth on their hands. It seems that nothing is off limits anymore - even "questionable" birth certificates are viewed as political ammunition.

Dirty Hands?

If you are Romney, or a Romney supporter, this is a prime example of dirty hands.The "dirtying" occurs because the Romney camp accuses Obama of something undeniably false. It can only be considered dirty hands if you think that it is a breach of morals necessary to Romney's success and consequently the betterment of the nation. If you view this as an unnecessary, immoral act, then it is not dirty hands. This illustrates an interesting point as dirty hands are entirely a function of perspective. 

Both Sides of the Aisle

If you are an Obama supporter, then you many consider this an example of dirty hands as Romney's private life is not portrayed in a totally accurate light. Once again, it can only be considered dirty hands if you believe it was a necessary immoral act committed for the betterment of the state.

In Machiavellian terms, the princes (aka the candidates) are preying on the emotions of the voters with falsehoods and distortions in an attempt to master and beat fortun into submission. Machiavelli would view this as a sign of virtu, as the princes recognize what must be done for the continuation of their power and the consequent bettering of the state.

Considering the absurdity of rhetoric and the nature of politics in general in modern day America, it's hard to imagine anybody has "dirty hands" in the sense Walzer intended, as it seems there are plenty of immoral acts but not many benefits to justify them.