Italian renaissance political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli once said, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both,” in his famed, innovative political treatise, “The Prince”. It is a fairly straightforward, blunt guide which outlines the ideal leader based upon political science, governance, and military science. But why is it better to be feared than loved? Perhaps it is because love is internally based. It is a feeling an individual largely chooses to feel, one that they can turn on and off easily. Love is fickle. It comes, it goes. Fear is much more predictable and largely externally based. Lovers can fall out easily on a fast downward spiral whim; fear does not wear off if an individual’s base character stays consistent. But note the “if you cannot be both.” The highest way is to be held in love, esteem, and respect during daily life, with something in the back of a person’s mind that if they do wrong by an individual, that individual will be a source of hell and misery. That keeps wanton destruction and arbitrary betrayals in check. Most people assume all good leaders are loved, never feared. Fear is employed only by the “bad guys.” Hitler. Mussolini. Osama. Stalin. Just to name a few. However, even “good guys” know that great leadership means dabbling in a touch of Machiavellianism.

What is Machiavellianism? It is the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct. In modern psychology, Machiavellianism is one of the dark triad personalities (with the others being narcissism and psychopathy), characterised by a duplicitous interpersonal style, a cynical disregard for morality, and a focus on self-interest and personal gain. A new model of Machiavellianism based in organisational settings consists of three factors: maintaining power, harsh management tactics, and manipulative leader tactics and behaviours. Sounds like something a bad guy would be interested in, right? On the contrary, even the greatest of leaders have exhibited these behaviours. That is not to say they were terrible leaders. If anything, by embracing Machiavellianism, they were greater leaders than they would’ve been without it. Nonetheless, the mere concept itself leaves an acrid taste on the tongues of most decent people. Little do they know, the great leaders of their society utilised the same ideas as their most barbaric enemies.

Current U.S. President Barack Obama is one of many paradigms of a Machiavellian leader. In the prince, Machiavelli stressed the importance of a leader to be war-wise. He says, “a prince ought to have no other aim or though, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules.” Under Obama’s presidency, America today has military involvement with at least 75 countries, with the highest claim being 120. His greatest military achievement? The capture and execution of Osama bin Laden. Machiavellianism also stressed the importance of a leader keeping their word or at the very least, appearing to keep their word. Obama has made many campaign promises, one of which includes the closing of Guantanamo Bay. Shortly after taking office, the president signed an executive order to shut down the detention camp, but alas, it is still open. Thus it was a matter of President Obama appearing to keep his word but did not because at a later time, it helped his political stance to keep it open. Machiavelli says that while it is good to be generous (see? He’s not such a bad guy after all), any generosity should not be presented as so, for that leads the people to greed and desire for more. Thus, generosity ought to come with a price. One example of this is the affordable care act or Obamacare, passed in 2010. It helped made healthcare more affordable, but required that the people purchase the healthcare insurance.

Another contemporary prince was the 33rd president of the United States, Harry S. Truman. His tactical decisions and presidential undertaking can be considered to reflect certain Machiavellian principles, primarily by this decision to drop the infamous atomic bomb on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. After all, according to Machiavelli, the means justify the ends, even if moral means must be used to preserve immoral ends. The archival material declassified by the White House clearly shows the intentions of the government, which unintentionally implements very heavy Machiavellian ideals. However, Truman’s decision to drop the bombs may also have simply been his ability to make tactical decisions under pressure. Regardless, it appears as if Truman utilised Machiavelli’s idea that an initial intense traumatic event would quickly end any type of rebellion; in the late president’s case, the Japanese. In addition, alternatives to end World War II were not actively pursued by Truman, which showcased his somewhat impatience to end the war. Ultimately, he turned out to lead with a heavy fist, perhaps even a consequentialist one because of the gravity of the decision to actually use such a powerful weapon. Again, Machiavelli makes it clear in the prince that although it is important for a leader to be loved and considered clement by his people, it is even more important for said leader to be feared. Machiavelli also wrote, “A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy.” Truman, obviously, was both.

So far, U.S. Presidents have been the caricatures of Machiavellianism, but even First Ladies can fit the role too. A prime example? Former Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Yes, she is a wife, a mother, and a grandmother, but more importantly, she has held tremendous power within her hands few could dare to boast possessing. Currently, she is a presidential candidate for the position of the 45th President of the United States. Machiavelli was very clear on what ideals a good leader should align themselves with and Clinton has religiously followed all of them: never believe anyone, no matter how trustworthy they seem; inspire fear in such a way that, if the leader does not win love, they avoid hatred instead; build one’s power up against one’s enemies; and know that people are generally useless and never do anything beneficial for others unless it’s mutually beneficial for them as well. Clinton has been known to be one to speak her mind, no matter who it may offend. Several republican Congress-people learnt this the difficult way during a 2013 hearing on the 2012 Benghazi attack. During her testimony, she engaged in a heated exchange with Senator Ron Johnson after he pressed her to explain why, in the immediate aftermath, no one from the State Department had asked American evacuees if there had been a protest before the attack. Clinton defended her actions; it didn’t matter to her if they were right or wrong as according to Machiavelli, one should never bow down to others and admit they were wrong. Though she is a part of the Democratic Party now, she doesn’t always believe everything a democrat might say. She firmly stands beside her beliefs. In a conference regarding Syria, she even bashed President Obama by saying, “‘Don’t do stupid stuff,’ is not an organising principle.’” As a powerful leader, she is more concerned with all of the United States and not just a small group of individuals as she had tried to create a national healthcare plan when she was First Lady.

In conclusion, Machiavellianism doesn’t necessarily mean “unprincipled”, but rather “effectively principled.” To an extent, all good leaders are Machiavellian, past and present. According to Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jared Diamond, “while Machiavelli is frequently dismissed today as an amoral cynic who supposedly considered the end to justify the means,” he is, in fact, “a crystal-clear realist who understands the limits and uses of power.” It is truly a shame that Machiavelli’s name has become my synonymous with cunning tyrants, but that just isn’t so. Whatever its intent may be, one thing is clear: Machiavellianism shows rulers how to survive in the world as it is and not as it should be.