Machiavelli and the Art of US Presidential Politics

 

The first rule of politics is to get and hold power. At least this is the argument of Niccolo Machiavelli in his classic book, The Prince.  If one wants to impact public policy, winning an election is not just an important thing. It is the only thing. Democrats need to remember that this year as they think about the presidential election and the prospects of running with Joe Biden.

Machiavelli's Prince  is often mischaracterized is making the argument that the ends justify the means.  By that, that any means necessary, whether it's legitimate or not, is permitted so long, it leads to one holding and maintaining power. The reality is even for Machiavelli, there are limits to power. At the end of the day, even he recognized both in the Prince and in his Discourses that the people are important. Winning them over and holding their support is critical to holding on to power.

 But in thinking about how one secures power Machiavelli distinguishes between virtu and fortuna.  Virtu is the characteristics and efficacy that the price possesses. In the case of modern America, a candidate for office brings charisma, their speaking ability, and  their stance on issues. It is their strategy and their ability to persuade or to influence.  Virtu is what is under one’s own control.

  In many ways, Richard Neustadt’s  classic book Presidential Power talks in part about the concept although he never calls it virtu.  Real power is the power to persuade and convince others to vote for you or adopt your policies.  Part of the power to persuade  are those traits that are within the scope and control of the candidate.

Conversely, Machiavelli also refers to fortuna, roughly translated as fate or luck, or perhaps contingency. These are factors beyond the control of the prince. Together, Machiavelli sees an interplay of virtu and fortuna.  The political he opportunities that one has are in part circumscribed or defined by fortuna. Similarly, in assessing the scope of presidential power, as the power to persuade Richard Neustadt sees both factors under a president's control as well as beyond as determining the actual power and influence.

When thinking about Joe Biden,  Machiavelli's concept of virtue and fortuna play out well. It 2020 Joe Biden got elected in part because of who he was a calming elderly candidate, whom people could trust. He significantly got elected because of the circumstances beyond his control. Donald Trump was his own worst enemy. He was a victim of fortuna but also his virtu was his own failing. Trump’s  mishandling of the pandemic just about sealed the election for Joe Biden.

Going into 2024 Joe Biden is behind Donald Trump in the popular vote, but more importantly trails Trump in the critical five or six swing states that will decide the election. Democrats had been hoping that fortuna would work in their favor again. The hope was that the economy would work to Biden's advantage and help him or that abortion politics, much like it worked in 2020 and in the midterm elections of 2022.  There was also hope that Trump's convictions or legal problems would help Biden and perhaps a belief that the Supreme Court decision in the disqualification  case would work to the advantage of Democrats. All of these are variables beyond Biden's control. They are fortuna.

The more one relies upon fortuna the less certain ones fate is.  This is exactly where Biden was prior to the presidential debate. There was a hope that his debate performance would change the direction of the presidential race. But it failed. Now in the days after that failed debate, Democrats and Biden appear to still be reliant upon fortuna hoping that somehow Trump will implode. Or that the voters will come back to their senses because of the fear of a Trump second presidency.

To believe all that is to leave too much to fate or to fortuna. Thinking that doing nothing, staying the course, not replacing Biden with somebody else will somehow lead to some scenario that will lead to his reelection is quite fanciful. In goes against what Machiavelli taught us about the first rule of politics.