17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 44:
Line 44: +
militia
::::::: Liberals like Machiavelli for the same reason that others held him in disdain. Liberals really do think the "end justifies the means," and they really worship political status rather than genuine achievement. Machiavelli is a hero to liberals, and hence the attempt to rehabilitate him by liberal historians. Don't take that personally, as I criticize liberals in the legal field also and hopefully historians welcome some accountability in their field.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::: Liberals like Machiavelli for the same reason that others held him in disdain. Liberals really do think the "end justifies the means," and they really worship political status rather than genuine achievement. Machiavelli is a hero to liberals, and hence the attempt to rehabilitate him by liberal historians. Don't take that personally, as I criticize liberals in the legal field also and hopefully historians welcome some accountability in their field.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::I suspect liberal intellectuals pay Machiavelli less attention than conservatives, judging from the scholarly books and article in recent decades. Harvey Mansfield at Harvard and Alan Bloom at Chicago, for example, taught courses on Machiavelli that influences a whole generation of "neoconservatives." Now it's '''machiavellianism''' that is rightly attacked as a formulary of evil government. But it's an interesting question --a lot of scholars (me too) think The Prince was designed as a warning for good citizens --a checklist of types of corruption to look out for. Machiavelli not only wrote the first studies about the citizen's militia he organized and supervised the first one, and his ideas were very well received by British and American writers before 1776. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)