FREE ESSAY ON AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IN CONTRAST TO LAO-TZU AND MACHIAVELLI

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IN CONTRAST TO LAO-TZU AND MACHIAVELLI

Peter Ryan Welch 382-92-3692
February 6, 2001
Dr. Allegra Blake, ENG 201
American Government in Contrast to Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli
In comparing and contrasting the governmental philosophies of the great thinkers Lao-Tzu
and Machiavelli, I have found a pleasant mix of both of their ideas would be the best for
America today. Lao-Tzu's laisse-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small
scale military is appealing to my liberal side, while Machiavelli's attitude towards
miserliness which causes low taxes appeals to the right wing. These great thinkers
contradict the popular saying "all great thinkers think alike." They have several ideas,
such as taxes, that are the same, while other ideas, like the involvement of government
in citizens' everyday lives are totally opposite. I shall start with the ideas of
Machiavelli, then move on to Lao-Tzu's, and finally a comparison and application into
American life. 
Niccolo Machiavelli believes in a strong government. The leader should be strong and
feared. I believe he gets this idea from the fear of God; no one is supposed to question
God because he is so feared, and in the same sense, no one should question a strong
leader. Machiavelli realizes that the leader should be feared, but not hated. A hated
leader will probably be killed in a rebellion. One also can not be loved. Any compassion
towards your citizens will make them believe you are weak, and they will rebel. He thinks
a very strong military is necessary at all times, and that powerful arms should be
available and in hand. This idea is similar to that of right wing America and our
friends, the National Rifle Association, who believe assault rifles are America's
pastime. The nation should always be prepared for war, and should always be searching for
new lands to conquer. This is much like our cold war with the USSR and the new lands to
conquer would be anything Communist. These wars should go on without high taxes. High
taxes as well cause rebellion. Case in point: the high taxes levied against America by
the British, as well as other strong factors, led to the American revolution. He believes
a government should be miserly with its own goods. That is not to say you can't steal the
goods of conquered countries and be liberal with them. Try not to be too generous,
however. A quote I once read says "remember to pillage before you burn." This reminds me
a lot of the ideas of Machiavelli. According to him, one should say one thing just to
make the people happy, and do another. He believes one should only keep his word if it is
for the benefit of the nation. Six words: "read my lips, no new taxes," come to mind.
George H.W. Bush said these words, but acted differently. Machiavellian? Maybe. Bush
shortly after had the largest tax hike in the nation's history to try to save us from the
worst recession since the Great Depression. I believe this is the sort of thing
Machiavelli is talking about. Do whatever you can to keep the people happy, but when it
comes down to it, what makes them happy may not be best for the state as a whole. He
believes that people are generally bad and greedy, so they will take whatever you give
them. 
Lao-Tzu is not exactly polar opposite of Machiavelli, although he is close. He believes
that man in a state of nature is generally good and not greedy. What makes man greedy is
overemphasis on material objects, and if you let a man go free in nature, he will be
good. Lao-Tzu believes in a state of peace; war is not necessary. Lao-Tzu thinks decent
men detest weapons. Weapons are only needed when entirely necessary, in a state of
defense. This is sort of a liberal point of view of war. He states "violence, even well
intentioned, always rebounds upon itself," therefore, any attack upon another country
will result in an attack upon yourself. As far as the scale of government, he is rather
conservative and would side with the American Republican party, believing a smaller, more
unnoticed government is better. 
When the Master governs, the people
Are hardly aware that he exists
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised. (Lao-Tzu 20)
He believes a good government should have simplicity, patience, and compassion. Lao-Tzu
believes in moderation. Much like the teachings of the Bible, this ancient philosopher
believes that too much of anything can be bad. He shares the belief of Machiavelli that
too many taxes are bad. Too many taxes makes your people go hungry. Unlike Machiavelli's
policy of conquest of other nations, he believes a leader should stay within his country
and govern his people only. 
Lao-Tzu is more liberal in social matters, while in economic and political matters, he is
more conservative. Machiavelli is a little more conservative in about every matter. A mix
of both of these theories is the best for the United States. There is always a danger if
we are too liberal, or too conservative. Something that candidates for any office in the
United States in past years have shot for is middle of the road politics, appealing to
both liberal democrats and conservative republicans. Now, if those politicians would only
keep their promises from their election campaigns, it would be more like Lao-Tzu. But not
keeping promises is something Machiavelli would do. 
All in all, both of these gentlemen have characteristics that would make leaders, and
their handbooks I believe would definitely help American leaders today. A mixture of
their war policies would be beneficial, for there is definitely no need for war, but a
national defense is necessary. Right now the nation's military is about the size it needs
to be. We need the teaching of Lao-Tzu to keep George W. Bush and his wacky cabinet
members in line. Right wing America would love Machiavelli and his kill 'em all and let
God sort 'em out sort of attitude. The defense industry would be booming with a
Machiavellian leader in the White House. The American government is already great,
however, because it does have the power to balance out, so no strong leader, whether it
be Lao-Tzu or Machiavelli, would be able to have too much power. When it comes to
welfare, I don't believe either man really supports it. Lao-Tzu's laisse-faire attitude
leads me to believe the people should be able to take care of themselves. Machiavelli
doesn't believe taxes should be high, and you shouldn't really spend the nation's wealth.
In addition, Machiavelli doesn't seem too warm hearted or caring for his people. This
country does need a form of welfare, and neither of these men support plans to help it. I
do not believe Machiavelli's honesty policy would go over too well in the United States.