Yap 1 Justin Yap English 1A Chris Greger 02/05/09 The Decision That Will Change the Country November 3, 2009 is just around the corner for the election and I am still debating on whom to pick for the next president of the United States of America. I have a tough decision deciding on whom to pick between Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu. I need carefully diagnose their political and economical views upon the country, as we need a drastic change that will save us from our current debt that has been an estimate of $3.45 billion a day. My colleagues and I have also looked into their views towards the state and to the country. As for me, I am leaning towards Lao-Tzu as the next president for he has a better chance of changing the country rather than Machiavelli who would most likely cause our country into a bigger chaos, which would not be a pleasant outcome to the personal views of American people. One reason why Lao-Tzu would be a better person is that he does not believe in using weapons as tools for fear. Weapons would bring value and power as Lao-Tzu believes in making things equal and not giving a sense of control. Weapons would give a sense of danger and if a person were able to use it all the time to drive away enemies, then there would be a sense of despise. After George W. Bush, I would not think the country would be happy to deal with all of the funding for the weapons. Other countries would not ally with us since we are stocking up on weapons and using them for fear. We as the country are trying to prevent the world from terrorism and massive destruction while we are building weapons and using it against our advantage, the world will consider a hypocrite and us as a terrorist. Lao-Tzu says, “When the
Yap 2 Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists. Next best is a leader who is loved… The worst is one who is despised” (22). Lao-Tzu clearly states that being a leader who is despise is not a good thing, which is why using weapons as tools for fear is a bad thing. However, using tools for fear may be a good thing as for Machiavelli would want to use it to take control of his people. Machiavelli would want to use the weapons to guard himself for protection and in order to do that a person must use weapons to steer the enemies away. Machiavelli says, “A prince who lacks the most important quality in a leader; because this skill teaches you to find the enemy, choose a campsite, lead troops, organize them for battle, and besiege towns to your own advantage.” (38-39). Machiavelli’s view would lead the country to success in order to gain control of the peace. Lao-Tzu would not like the ways of Machiavelli for he would say, “Give evil nothing to oppose and it will disappear by itself” (29). If Lao-Tzu were the next president, he would let the terrorist steam off a bit. We as the country would save a big heap in money by not making weapons, which would totally help the economy situation. Lao-Tzu is looking for peace and balance toward the community for which I think a president should have as it makes it a good leader trait. Another reason why Lao-Tzu would be a better person is that he believes in balance that if people value things, we tend to strive more for the limited stuff. Lao-Tzu would want a person to relax and enjoy the things that we have: make good use of it. If person values things, people would be competitive; this would cause a serious increase of theft. People would not be happy and would have to protect themselves from these thieves by making more restrictions, boundaries, secrets, etc. Lao-Tzu points out that if we, “Throw away industry and profit, and there won’t be any thieves” (23). The community needs a leader who can balance things out if we throw away values and just focus on the good things we have already. In today’s standards,
Yap 3 people value things like if there was no tomorrow. As they continue to do so, they become very possessive, greedy, and lose sight of a better hope. A better hope where people would enjoy the environment, the natural Mother Nature has given us. Critics of this view argue would argue that there are certain quantities of the resources and that if we use them, they become scarce. There is no such thing as infinite amount of resources, so we have to be wise and careful of using it as in the near future would no longer be available. In Machiavelli’s terms, restricting certain aspects and organization, there would be a sense of control. He would control the scarce resources, which will make them available in the near future. Machiavelli would also take away certain resources and redistribute them. Machiavelli points out, “the reasons for seizing their property are never lacking and he who begins to live by stealing always finds a reason for taking what belongs to others…” (44). However, there are the people who are going to be unhappy from the theft. Lao-Tzu points out, “For every force there is a counterforce. Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself” (24). If the community were to balance things out, there would be an ease sense of order and happiness. As “when there is no desire, all things are at peace” (25). That is why choosing Lao-Tzu as the next president would be fulfilling, as himself would want to keep the peace and balance between one another. There would be no sense of value or greed as everything will be equal. Another good reason why Lao-Tzu should be president is that he believes in telling the truth to the community rather than lying. I would much prefer the next president to tell the truth to the community so that the people would not worry whether if there were a secret going around, whether through the media or gossip. We need a president who can tell the truth so we can rely on them. Over the past years, we have been living under a harmful of lies by the government. One saying that President McKinley told the country that the USS Maine had been
Yap 4 sunk in Havana Harbor by Spanish mine when in reality it did not. There was no mine. Another saying that George W. Bush referred special documents in his 2003 State of the Union Speech saying that Iraq bought tons of uranium oxide, also called “Yellow Cake” from Niger. In the end, the declassified memo proves that the State Department reported that the Niger documents were forgeries to the CIA eleven days before President George W. Bush made the claim about the Niger uranium on the documents. Going back to Lao-Tzu, he prefers in telling the truth simply because of him not caring about his appearance, unlike Machiavelli who prefers appearance, reputation and convincing the country in such acts for support (more like George W. Bush). As Machiavelli points out, “a prince will always use up all his resources and he will be obliged, eventually, if he wishes to maintain his reputation for generosity” (41). In order for Machiavelli to keep his appearance in good standards and reputation, he has to lie to keep his popularity up while convincing the country for various supports. Lao-Tzu on the other hand prefers to tell the truth and let the problems take care of themselves, as they tend to dissolve. As Lao-Tzu points out, “A great nation is like a great man, when he makes a mistake, he realizes it. Having realized it, he admits it. Having admitted it, he corrects it” (29). Lao-Tzu would best be telling the truth because he would want the great nation to realize their mistakes and attempt to fix it. If they do not admit their mistakes, it would not trust the Tao. Lao-Tzu also mentions, “Humility means trusting the Tao, thus never needing to be defensive” (29). Having great trust as a leader is a good trait and the leader should not under estimate it. That is why I think Lao-Tzu should be the next president. Finally, the next reason why I think Lao-Tzu should be president is that he has a better sense of governing rather than Machiavelli. Lao-Tzu would want to trust the Tao and to have the issues taken care of as they are without giving any sense of control to where it will disrupt its
Yap 5 natural course (24). If we eventually leave things on its own, such as the world, nature, and human nature, it would be easy and everybody would be happy. Lao-Tzu also has this sense of calm and peace in him as he does not want to tamper things, using weapons, or by telling the truth and nothing but the truth. His personality definitely suits my type, as I myself am relaxed and one who lets things take care of themselves (depending on the scenario). However, there might be challenges to Machiavelli with this peaceful mood. Machiavelli is more of a person who would want to take charge by being offensive, but not too offensive to where he his hated since he does not want that. Machiavelli would take his army and be ready for any cause, both by action and in the mind. Machiavelli points out that “a wise prince must follow, and never in peaceful times must he be idle; but he must turn them diligently to his advantage in order to be able to profit from them in times of adversity, so that, when Fortune changes, she will find him prepared to withstand such times� (39-40). In addition, Lao-Tzu would do the same, but with to a certain degree of acts. He would only do unnecessary actions (like war) only to do what is right without rejoicing in victory as he thinks manslaughter isn’t a thing to be rejoicing for, but as a funeral (25). Lao-Tzu has this peacefulness thinking to where he would only take necessary actions if he has to. As for Machiavelli, he would take actions to keep his debut good, as he would want his people to agitate him. In my opinion, Lao-Tzu would still be a better candidate for the next president. This country is in a desperate need of help financially, economically, and politically. Already people are losing jobs and are suffering to pay off their debts that they have accumulated over the years. As for Lao-Tzu being the best candidate, he can change the country and have a brand new start. In comparison, Machiavelli who I believe would bring this country into a bigger tumult. However, there are some personal views that I do not always necessarily agree with Lao-
Yap 6 Tzu. Some of Machiavelli’s actions may be appropriate (and again, inappropriate) in certain situations. Deciding which would weigh more than the other would, Lao-Tzu would be the best candidate for the next president who will run in the office in 2010.