Machiavelli emphasizes the need for the exercise of brute power where necessary and rewards, patron-clientelism etc. to preserve the status quo.

I was thumbing through the books on my bookshelf on Sunday looking for something interesting to read. I came across a book entitled “The Portable Machiavelli” which focuses on The Prince, but includes various other works by or about Machiavelli. As I searched the vast emptiness that is my memory, I found hidden in some dusty recess of my mind a vague recollection of my first reading of The Prince. The details were flawed and blurry from time. But the curious feeling that I got from reading such a work returned to me like that elderly man that I make carry my stuff around – he always comes back - so eager to please. Anyway, I enjoyed the warm tingly feeling that coursed through my extremities for a moment before I opened the book and began once again to read Machiavelli’s work.

To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally considered politically incorrect, which is why I am drawn to his ideas so much. I do, however, believe that much of what the general populace believes concerning Machiavelli is contrived and based upon some gross exaggerations of his writings. Indeed being Machiavellian can often be politically expedient.

Contrary to the notion that a Machiavellian is an indiscriminately cruel being, only concerned with himself, I declare - by way of various systematic statements - that Machiavelli believed that leadership requires an intricate and delicate balance.

Machiavelli paints an unabashedly pessimistic tapestry of the human race. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In his own words he said: Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you.

His writings were unlike idealists such as Aristotle and Plato. Machiavelli’s writing was based on the spurious basis of human nature that he saw. The ideal society was not his aim. Because of the fallacy of human nature, a leader is required at times to elicit cruel actions in order to gain a desired end. Machiavelli does not miss the irony in the fact that good can come from evil actions. He outlines the criteria for acceptable cruel actions – they must be swift, effective, and short lived. In the actions of all men...when there is no impartial arbiter, one must consider the final result. Much of the myths that plague the posthumous notoriety of Machiavelli stem from this quote. Machiavelli did not believe that one had to be indiscriminately cruel in order to make people fear or respect their leader. He did assert that at times cruelty was warranted IF it had a pragmatic end.

Machiavelli taught that it is best to be both loved and feared by the people. This is a very difficult balance to strike and therefore if one must choose between the two, it is best to be feared than to be loved. Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated. If a leader is loved but not feared, the masses will take advantage of his easy nature because they have no fear of consequence. If a prince is feared to the point of being hated, he is in danger of anarchists and revolutionists. [A Prince] should imitate the fox and the lion, because the lion cannot defend himself from snares and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. Therefore, it is important to be a fox in order to understand the snares and a lion in order to terrify the wolves.
It is important to note that in the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way. Perhaps if he were to live today his political philosophies would be different. Perhaps not.
I have often heard the United States of America called an empire. To describe American as an 'empire' tries to capture the concept, the true import of the term. The world is a much different place then it was during the time of Machiavelli. The exponential expansion and development of technology has facilitated a globalization of culture. Media and the internationalization of business are perhaps the largest factors in this phenomenon. Still, each country still has its various traditions and values; however there has been a marked explosion of cultural exchange across the world.
With the development and success of the modern democracy and the phenomenon of globalization in (relatively) recent history, the structure of an empire has changed, and with it has changed the necessary formula for control. To then assume that an empire can only be created by conquest and military victory only illuminates limited thinking. Empires succeed because of the way in which they force or coerce others into accepting their culture. America has had a great impact on the world. I often like America to a modern empire which has disseminated its culture to a large number of other countries, which has a certain level of military supremacy, and which subscribes to a particular point of view which places the interests of that particular empire/nation above any and all other interests. That right there is adapted Machiavellianism.
It is my opinion that Machiavelli’s work is applicable today despite the taboo associated with being considered a Machiavellian. His ideals, though pessimistic, are also quite practical on many levels. Indeed Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others.