Script:
My name is Shaun D. McMillan and this is the Best Class Ever.
During the last two lessons we looked at some of Shakespeare’s most famous political history plays. We’ve looked at how he is able to take on sophisticated philosophical ideas by simultaneously advocating two opposite answers. For as F. Scott Fitzgerald once said
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald
There is yet one more question that Shakespeare’s plays seem to offer an interesting answer to… What Makes a Great Political Leader? So today we will look at what the famous Greek philosophers, Machiaveli from Italy, and Shakespeare have to say about great leaders and how that would apply to today.
Plato & Aristotle.
In the century leading up to year 0, or the birth of Jesus Christ, the golden age of Greek philosophy took place, and three of our greatest thinkers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle created the foundation of the Roman Empire and western thought. They had a lot to say about what is the best form of government and what is the ideal leader?
The Socratic Method
The Greeks introduced the idea of Democracy and thought it the ideal form of government, but Socrates did have his reservations. Famous for investigating ideas through difficult questions, what we now refer to as the Socratic method, Socrates listened to a fellow citizen praising democracy as the greatest achievement of Athens and then asked him to consider the following situation.
If a chef who could bake delicious sweets were to run in an election against a dentist, who do you think would win in a democratic election?
The baker would offer great delicacies to the people. Would not the majority of the crowd be pleased?
Do you think the doctor would be able to reply effectively? The true answer – ‘I cause you trouble, and go against your desires in order to help you’ would cause an uproar among the voters, don’t you think?
Socrates’ argument in Plato’s Republic
Democracy in this way is rule by the majority, and tends towards mob justice. And due to the power of emotional arguments over rational thought, democracies are also weak to demagogues. Demagogues are politicians who feed on the irrational fears, desires, and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.
The Philosopher King
As for the ideal leader, here is a quote of Socrates from Plato’s book titled, “The Republic.” in which he suggests that the ideal leader is often the least popular and thus least likely to be elected by a democracy.
When a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and stargazers.
Socrates as quoted in Plato’s, “Republic.”
Thus the Greeks believed that the ideal leader would be a philosopher king, an humble king who was not ambitious but lives a virtuous life, seeking to increase his wisdom instead of winning popularity contests. Democratic political systems give political positions to characters who are quite the opposite. Party leaders cannot win votes if they are not ambitious enough to ask for them. And to stay in power they must often employ deceptive or unethical means to attain more power and influence as Machiaveli pointed out in his famous book, “The Prince.”
Machieaveli’s “The Prince”
Machieaveli wrote an instructional guide on how to lead effectively and was far less philosophical and far more pragmatic. He explained that it was far more important to keep up the impression that a leader is virtuous than to actually be virtuous. He explained that a prince must study the art of war as his single most important occupation. This is because victory by your own citizens over foreign enemies was the surest way to avoid domestic problems.
Machiaveli asked perhaps one of the most important questions of all. Is it better to be loved or feared? Machieveli had a very low opinion of the populous and argued that because people are rarely loyal but often acting in their own self-interest, it is in fact better to be feared.
Machiaveli’s instructions became quite infamous due to his disregard for morality and ethics in his advice. A leader who uses secretive political machinations and back door dealings is often referred to as a “Machievellian” due to some of his ruthless suggestions. He argued that it was fine for a prince to have a reputation of being merciful and generous, but to actually be generous was not effective. To be a miser, or penny pincher, was much more effective because a good administrator would be able to fund public campaigns.
He used real examples of great leaders from history to show that acts of cruelty were sometimes necessary to establish one’s rule. But to be hated by the people is to be avoided at all costs, so acts of cruelty were best if hidden, done secretly through third parties, or done publicly only on rare occasions so as to be quickly forgotten. His arguments were extremely pragmatic leading to the idea that the ends justify the means, or that results are more important than how ethically you achieve them.
Shakespeare and Politics
If we look at Shakespeare’s characters and plots, we can clearly see that he viewed the world from the perspective laid out by both the Greeks and Machiaveli. His characters perfectly illustrate the ideas laid out for him by Plato and Machiaveli.
Logos, Eros, and Thumos
In Plato’s book called, “The Republic.” he gave the following analogy as the basis for man’s predicament. He described man as a horse driver. The two horses are Thumos and Eros. The driver himself is Reason, rationality, or Logos.
Thumos, the first horse, is a Greek word that translates as spiritedness, ambition, valor, pride, ego-centered, or the desire for honor and glory.
The other horse, Eros, is passions, desires, or our more animalistic and materialistic needs for food and sex. Plato described our deeper thinking, more philosophical faculty for reason called Logos as trying to reign in these two horses.
You may or may not find this a useful analogy for understanding yourself, but Shakespeare certainly seems to have taken this to heart when creating his characters. In his plays you can often find characters who are extremely strong in one of these three characteristics.
Thumos
The heroes of his two of his Roman plays, Coriolanus and Julius Caesar, are both extremely strong, boastful, and ambitious. They are quintessential representations of Thumos. Like the great strongmen of old illustrated in Greek myths and epic poems, these are men known for the valor in battle. They aren’t extremely insightful or introspective. Unlike the protagonists in Shakespeare’s Christian plays who are much more thoughtful and internally conflicted, these heroes of old hold valor as the greatest virtue.
Eros
The protagonists of Romeo & Juliet hold passionate love to be more sacred than life itself. They represent the dangers of Eros, following your passions, desires, and the ideals of Medieval chivalry. His comedies are filled with characters who worship the opposite sex, write poetry that sounds almost religious in its devotion, and courtly love from which we still draw our dating customs to this day. Shakespeare often poked fun at these lofty ideas about love.
Logos
Shakespeare’s most intelligent protagonist is Hamlet. The play is also one of his darkest tragedies. Hamlet thinks so much and so deeply that he can’t decide what to do, and in the end nearly loses his mind.
Balance & Outlets
These plays I’ve just mentioned are mostly tragic. Shakespeare seems to be telling us that the key is to find balance. It’s also important to provide an outlet for each of these characteristics.
Hamlet’s world and the world of Romeo & Juliet is ruled by elders and doesn’t provide an outlet for the thumotic ambitions or allow for the erotic passions of its young people. These worlds centered on frustrated young people are filled with soliloquies and poetry.
The world of Rome is the opposite. Rome’s republic encouraged war and epic achievements. It held valor as its greatest virtue and rewarded ambition. But these plays have heroes who aren’t very thoughtful or able to change. There is very little in the way of love or poetry.
Comedies & Tragedies
Shakespeare was one of the few special writers who could write both comedies and tragedies. Today we use comedy to mean humor, but back then it simply meant a story with a happy ending. But even today we refer to films with unhappy endings as tragic plots–the ones in which the protagonist is unable to overcome their flaw. These never sell as many tickets, but they teach us some key lessons.
In Shakespeare’s plays the comedies with happy endings tend to be dominated by women who are able to take a proactive role in shaping the plot. The protagonists are able to change and adapt to the situation. It seems to be that flexibility that keeps their flaws from becoming fatal unlike the heroes who die at the end of tragedies.
So maybe, according to Shakespeare’s plays, the key to being a great leader is the ability to change and adapt. Tragic leaders are those whose strengths become a liability.
As Lord Byron once said,
“All tragedies are finished by a death, All comedies are ended by a marriage.”
Lord Byron
Next week we will look at one of Shakespeare’s most tragic young leaders, Hamlet, and his most successful young leaders, King Henry V of England. Perhaps by looking at the difference we can see whether our theory is accurate. And when the greatest conflict of our life arises, let’s hope that we too will have the wisdom and discernment to end our stories in marriage instead of death.
For notes on today’s lesson, or to revisit previous lessons feel free to visit www.BestClassEver.org
