Changes

::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:53, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:53, 14 February 2009 (EST)

:Machiavelli has had ZERO influence on conservatives, or the Founding Fathers, or anything else of great value.  Zilch.  The reference given is to "Pocock", but it should be to poppycock.  This revisionism of someone felt for centuries to be inspired by the devil cannot last here.  I wouldn't put it on Citizendium either!  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:Machiavelli has had ZERO influence on conservatives, or the Founding Fathers, or anything else of great value.  Zilch.  The reference given is to "Pocock", but it should be to poppycock.  This revisionism of someone felt for centuries to be inspired by the devil cannot last here.  I wouldn't put it on Citizendium either!  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::I'm not sure where you get this idea that he had zero influence from.  Francis Bacon, the catalyst of the scientific revolution, was deeply fond of Machiavelli's ''Prince'' and ''Discourses on Livy,'' based his entire approach to the writing and study of history upon the Machiavellian approach, and noted, "We are much beholden to Machiavel and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do."  The ''Discourses'' had wide impact throughout the centuries on republican thinking, though I can't speak to his influence on the founding fathers, being a British, and not American historian. [[User:PaulAuber|PaulAuber]] 01:18, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::I'm not sure where you get this idea that he had zero influence from.  Francis Bacon, the catalyst of the scientific revolution, was deeply fond of Machiavelli's ''Prince'' and ''Discourses on Livy,'' based his entire approach to the writing and study of history upon the Machiavellian approach, and noted, "We are much beholden to Machiavel and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do."  The ''Discourses'' had wide impact throughout the centuries on republican thinking, though I can't speak to his influence on the founding fathers, being a British, and not American historian. [[User:PaulAuber|PaulAuber]] 01:18, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::Yes Paul is right. The ''Discourses'' are cited and reprinted to this day by conservatives. Some argue that ''The prince'' is a warning what it's like to have a king who is sovereign as opposed to the much better system that Machiavelli supported of a republic. Better look at Pocock (a cnservative--he and I used to have adjoining offices in the the 1960s) or the dozens of other scholarly studies. Willmore Kendall for example wrote about what was "truly admirable in Machiavelli" (the Discources), which are not at all "Machiavellian" (in the Prince-sense). M. warns that "Principality easily becomes Tyranny."  Conservative historian Paul Rahe has an entire book on [http://books.google.com/books?id=RoW4qbnc6t8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=machiavelli+discources+conservatives&source=bl&ots=7B94yBtgAY&sig=Jz_eIVEeziK2NdLn9RMZFA7cARE&hl=en&ei=hX_ESf6pGoKOsQPNoKXgBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=13&ct=result ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy''] Another leading conservative using Machiavelli is Harvey C. Mansfield of Harvard. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Yes Paul is right. The ''Discourses'' are cited and reprinted to this day by conservatives. Some argue that ''The prince'' is a warning what it's like to have a king who is sovereign as opposed to the much better system that Machiavelli supported of a republic. Better look at Pocock (a cnservative--he and I used to have adjoining offices in the the 1960s) or the dozens of other scholarly studies. Willmore Kendall for example wrote about what was "truly admirable in Machiavelli" (the Discources), which are not at all "Machiavellian" (in the Prince-sense). M. warns that "Principality easily becomes Tyranny."  Conservative historian Paul Rahe has an entire book on [http://books.google.com/books?id=RoW4qbnc6t8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=machiavelli+discources+conservatives&source=bl&ots=7B94yBtgAY&sig=Jz_eIVEeziK2NdLn9RMZFA7cARE&hl=en&ei=hX_ESf6pGoKOsQPNoKXgBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=13&ct=result ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy''] Another leading conservative using Machiavelli is Harvey C. Mansfield of Harvard. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)