Machiavellianism: What kind of strategy is that?

Machiavellianism in its simplest form is a person’s tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain. Doesn’t sound very Nice, does it?

Yet there is a political doctrine that has arisen based on this notion.

Here are some quotes from the website BuzzFlash.com:

Machiavellianism: The political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power.

Recently Kevin Phillips, former Republican strategist, appeared on C-Span’s Book TV to discuss his new book, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush.(4) During his opening statements he spoke of political tactics as shaped by Machiavelli, the first great political philosopher of the Renaissance or more specifically from his work entitled The Prince. Phillips stated that Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s political strategist, and the late Lee Atwater, George H. W. Bush’s political strategist, followed the teachings of Machiavelli.

For Machiavelli, politics was about one and only one thing: getting and keeping power or authority. Everything else, religion, morality, truth, honor, and integrity, that people associate with politics has nothing to do with this fundamental aspect of politics, unless being moral helps one get and keep power. The only skill that counts in getting and maintaining power is calculation. The successful politician knows what to do or what to say for every situation, no matter what it takes. It is only about winning and keeping power.

Many people think Machiavellianism is the sign of a sophisticated strategizer and competent politician. “Novice” politicians sometimes aren’t even allowed to speak to the media in case they say the “wrong thing” — what would make something “wrong”, other than a mis-stated fact?

So is it a good thing to be Machiavellian? What makes a really good Machiavellian?

There is new brain research about exactly this topic in a study called “Machiavellianism” and frontal dysfunction.

Individuals with Parkinson’s disease are often described as undergoing significant personality changes. This led the researchers to explore the nature of their changes compared to “Machiavellian”-style individuals.

In a study of 35 individuals with Parkinson’s disease, the participants were divided into two groups on the basis of their scores on the Mach IV scale, which measures a set of “Machiavellian” personality characteristics.

The results were that the Parkinson’s group with high levels of Machiavellian traits (“high Machs”) were selectively impaired on tests of prefrontal function relative to “low Mach” patients. The high Machs didn’t differ from low Machs on any of the other measurements of age, educational level, stage of disease, mood, or simple cognitive testing. But they did indicate a greater willingness to affiliate with a fictional Machiavellian character and scored significantly lower on the “cooperativeness” and “self-directedness” subscales of a character inventory.

 

Here is where I need to tell you that the prefrontal lobes are considered the “executives” of the brain. You need your prefrontal lobes to organize yourself, to plan, to follow-through, to pay attention, to empathize, to use emotional intelligence, to reflect on your own thoughts, emotions, actions, and beliefs. The frontal lobes are also the “conductor” of the brain. They connect to the emotional circuits and integrate our emotions with our reflections and actions related to those emotions. Keeping this in mind…

 

…Here are the conclusions of the researchers:

We suggest that (1) Parkinson’s Disease patients with frontal impairment are vulnerable to dramatic personality change, and (2) the frontal lobes are required for maintenance of prosocial personality traits.

Read that last bit again: “the frontal lobes are required for maintenance of prosocial personality traits.”

Translating that back to the Machiavellianism doctrine, it suggests that those who believe it is a valid approach to politics are acting as if they have damaged frontal lobes and as if they are lacking in prosocial personality traits. Or at least that seems to be part of what is required to act in a Machiavellian way.

I’m not saying that Machiavellian politicians are brain-damaged. There is no evidence for saying something in that direction.

I am saying that effective frontal lobe functioning is required NOT to act in a Machiavellian way.

What this research says to me is that to practice “power politics”, we need to disconnect our emotions from our reasoning and actions. That means reducing or ignoring our own emotional signals about what’s working for us or not, it means reducing or ignoring the needs and reactions of other — other than as “data” to be used without empathy.

Disconnecting ourselves is well known to lead to stress disorders, burnout, dissatisfaction with life, negative relationships, etc.

Why would we want a Machiavellian kind of politics?

Would anyone actually prefer to be this kind of politician?

Why do we tolerate this style in politicians even when we see them seem to be clearly acting this way in their relationship with voters, constituents, the media?

What do you think would be the kinds of characteristics that might give away someone operating from the assumption that politics is all about getting and keeping power?

P.S. I found myself hesitating over using the word “Nice” in my first sentence. I found it interesting that I would be unsure about how appropriate the word was — was I going to sound too naive? too Polly-anna’ish? Is this a symptom of how entrenched some of the attitudes of Machiavellianism are – that “sophisticated” is better than Nice?? I see fodder for another post there —