Machiavelli's teaching would hardly have stood the test of Parliamentary government, for public discussion demands at least the profession of good faith.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
What's distinctively shocking about Machiavelli is that he didn't care. He believed not only that politicians must do evil in the name of the public good, but also that they shouldn't worry about it. He was unconcerned, in other words, with what modern thinkers call 'the problem of dirty hands.'
No minister ever stood, or could stand, against public opinion.
I've been fascinated by Machiavelli since I was very young. I've always felt that he had a bad rap from history, and that he was actually a person quite unlike what we now think of as Machiavellian. He was a republican. He disliked totalitarian government.
Machiavelli did believe that it was better to appear to be good than to be good. If you're good, you're just too vulnerable, but if you appear to be good, you get all the benefits plus you can be sneaky and, when necessary, stab someone in the back.
No part of the education of a politician is more indispensable than the fighting of elections.
Machiavelli had some cold tricks for people who wanted to be demagogues and wanted to take over the world.
Asking for a royally appointed prime minister is undemocratic. It is, pardon me, a mess. It is irrational.
No one ever teaches well who wants to teach, or governs well who wants to govern.
A political convention is not a place where you can come away with any trace of faith in human nature.
The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press.
No opposing quotes found.