ve, but it is very necessary to seem to have them." In other words, being a prince is like acting. It doesn't matter what kind of a person he is, as long as the people only see the side of him they like. This is a very strong statement, and in my opinion is very sound. When you assume any kind of leadership role, people expect you to act a certain way, and when they don't see what they like, they will hate you. So, I don't think that it is absolutely necessary to have all of the virtues of a good prince, although it is very difficult to stage the extreme hypocrisy. Take President Clinton, for example. He was an excellent president, as far as economic policies, foreign affairs, and personality went. And he would have continued to be considered so by the American people if he hadn't gotten caught performing immoral judgements in his private life. In this case, the people saw a part of him that they didn't like, and so he is now frowned upon. What the people don't know can't hurt them, but how long can you keep the people from knowing?A third major thought of Machiavelli is that it is better for a prince to be feared than to be loved by his people. His main reason is that men have less hesitation in offending one who makes himself beloved than one who makes himself feared. "for love holds by a bond of obligation which, as mankind is bad, is broken on every occasion whenever it is for the interest of the obliged party to break it. But fear holds by the apprehension of punishment, which never leaves men." I believe this is true to an extent. People will follow someone more readily when there is a punishment hanging over their heads. And while this might be good for the Prince, I would think that the people would end up being unhappy. After living their entire lives in fear, they would surely become tired of it and revolt. Machiavelli states that it is important to be feared but not hated, which I think is impossible to do. ...
