Increasingly, the five-century old ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1519) regarding the way politicians operate have gained respectability from Washington DC to your town. Recent books, for example, by Neoconservative Michael Ledeen, “Machiavelli on Modern Leadership,” and former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, “The New Prince,” apply Machiavellian ideas to current events.

Should conservatives interested in reducing the size of government and protecting American liberty care about this? A little background information will explain why they should care and why they should beware of people who paint Machiavelli’s ideas as something to adhere to.

Recently, scholars and political writers like Ledeen and Morris have attempted to provide Machiavelli with a cosmetic makeover. Some have even hailed him as the “founder of modern political science.” Although it is not his only publication, Machiavelli is best known for his handbook for aspirants to political power entitled “The Prince.” It was published posthumously in 1532.

Machiavelli had a reputation for being a master politician, and was elected Secretary of State in 1498, Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence (Italy). He served in this position for 14 years. When the French army took Florence, Machiavelli was exiled. He was banished to a small property he owned and was forbidden to set foot in Florence. As a very bitter man during this period of his life, he composed “The Prince.”

The book accurately describes human nature of the time -- some say, for all time. Although it was at the end of the Renaissance -- a period of incredible genius and human advancement -- governing in the 1500s was still regarded as a struggle for power. Machiavelli lived in a time that predates much of the important literature and thought on liberty and free enterprise that ultimately led to the most radical experiment in human freedom in the history of man -- the United States of America.

Consider some of the advice that Machiavelli offers to power seekers: (1) build a group of easily led followers; (2) avoid having advisors who are too smart; (3) if diplomacy doesn’t work, war is an acceptable alternative; (4) keep your enemies close to you; (5) be feared rather than loved; (6) politicians are not bound by moral law.

Regarding the building of a group of easily led followers, for example, Machiavelli wrote, “a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him.” Does this mean the “founder of modern political science” was also the godfather of the ever-expanding list of “entitlement” programs offered by our government?

All six items explain why Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin studied Machiavelli intently. So has every power seeker who believes the ends justify the means. The ends never justify the means, of course, especially since “the means” usually become permanent practices of power seekers.

There is an alternative to Machiavellian concepts established 1800 years prior to Machiavelli’s birth. The great philosopher Aristotle established politics as the branch of philosophy that applies ethics to social problems, and which identifies and defines the functions of government. Aristotle taught that, “Every rational activity aims at some end or good…The science that studies the supreme Good for man is politics…Instances of morally fine and just conduct…is what politics investigates.”

Machiavelli attempted to overrule Aristotle by exempting politicians from any moral considerations.

Consider the contrast. The Aristotelian position is one of optimism and a view of man as he can and should be. He was the champion of reason as a tool of human understanding.

The Machiavellian position is one of cynicism and a view of man as a helpless wretch caught in an unknowable world. He was a champion of the use of physical force as the ultimate arbiter of human disagreements.

The next time you hear someone boast about understanding and embracing the recycled ideas of Machiavelli, you might want to ask the person two questions. First, ask why the person has such a cynical point of view. Then, ask if the person is keeping you close because he regards you as an enemy or an easily led follower.