Machiavelli's "The Prince" Versus Pres. Obama's "Team of Rivals" Cabinet

The "mirror for princes" genre was a type of political writing that was very popular during the European Renaissance of the 14th through 17th centuries. These books taught rulers how to behave in order to avoid having reigns that were violent, tragic, and most of all, short. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is the most famous example of this genre. Currently, these books are mostly read as a form of self-help literature. Most Blacks have never heard of them. This is a pity. This lack of knowledge makes us vulnerable. Vulnerable to hype, and vulnerable to the wiles of others who are familiar with the wisdom contained in these books.

In my recent Sovereign Individual post, I mentioned some of the flaws inherent in the composition of what Pres. Obama apparently believes is "his" team. I pointed out that Pres. Obama doesn't have a strong, faithful posse of his own. He didn't create any of the people around him. Instead, he was loaned the use of other people's posses and retainers. To use Renaissance terminology, Pres. Obama has surrounded himself with mercenaries and auxiliaries. Auxiliaries are troops borrowed from another (typically more powerful) prince.

We can all see what's wrong with depending upon mercenaries. They have no loyalty to anyone because they fight for money. The small saving grace is that mercenaries usually work as individuals with no real attachments to other rulers or factions. Therefore, they probably won't work in an organized, united manner to undermine the prince that has hired them. When mercenaries betray the prince who hired them, they will usually do so as individuals. This is more manageable than the problems created by auxiliaries.

Auxiliaries are even more dangerous than mercenaries. Auxiliaries are loyal to another prince!

When you lose with auxiliaries, you lose. When you win with auxiliaries, you still lose. This is because you owe your victory to the power of another prince. The other prince who loaned you his troops wins because he controls his principality, and indirectly yours also.

A prince without his own native troops will never be truly independent OR secure.

I'll let Niccolo Machiavelli break it down about mercenaries:

"I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.

The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe. . . " The Prince, Chapter 12, "How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries." [emphasis added]

Machiavelli on auxiliaries:

"[Auxiliaries] may be useful and good in themselves, but for [the prince] who calls them in they are always disadvantageous; for losing, one is undone, and winning, one is their captive." The Prince, Chapter 13, "Concerning Auxiliaries, Mixed Soldiery, And One's Own." [emphasis added]

I'm going through this in some detail because more of us need to learn how to disregard the hype, and look at situations through the prism of recorded human experience in these matters. It's worth everyone's time to read The Prince and other "mirrors for princes."