Rebuttal to opinion on political philosophers
John Williams’ argument in last week’s paper suffers from the fallacy of false equivalence. Even a cursory look at Machiavelli tells us that he supports a ruler who comes to power by eliminating other would-be leaders (even through murder) – he makes the claim in his work “The Prince” and also in his less brutal work on the Roman Republic, “Discourses on Livy”.
While, in Plato’s “Republic”, he speaks of a reluctant “Philosopher King” who takes on the role out of moral duty. Perhaps the Emperor Marcus Aurelius is a strong example of this type of leader.
Regardless, neither work speaks of an elected top leader, which for the purposes of a democracy seems to make them incomparable and even inferior to our own Constitution. This is borne out in the fact that the United States is the longest standing democracy.
We should not compare our situation with the ones Machiavelli and Plato propose because they are apples and oranges (false equivalents), unless you are suggesting that we forgo our superior democratic model for the Roman model that Machiavelli understood as a blending of a monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, wherein only about 10% plebeians in the late Republic had a say in determining leaders.
I for one would rather look to our own United States Constitution and former presidents, like Washington, Teddy and F.D. Roosevelt and Lincoln, for guidance in these precarious times.
– Jeanmarie Dollard