It is better to be feared than loved, or not

By Richard K. Barry 

Ryan Lizza has a fascinating piece in The New Yorker on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's political style. For the piece he interviewed former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, who clearly has issues with Christie:

"He doesn't always try to persuade you with reason," Kean said. "He makes you feel that your life's going to be very unhappy if you don't do what he says." He added that one of Christie's flaws "is that he makes enemies and keeps them. As long as you're riding high, they'll stay in the weeds, because they don't want to get in your way. But you get in trouble, they'll all come out of the weeds, and come at you." 

I couldn't help thinking about a passage in Machiavelli's Prince (Chap. XVII), in which he discusses a particular aspect of political style:

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Perhaps Gov. Christie has read his Machiavelli and believes it is best to keep everyone around him in a constant state of fear that he could do them harm if inclined.

But Kean's comments are instructive. If those surrounding the leader are loyal only as long as he is powerful enough to hurt them, they may happily "come out of the weeds" when they sense he is no longer "riding high." If there is real respect and affection, however, it is possible those around him may remain on side when times are tough.

I'd like to think Machiavelli got this one wrong, and that Christie will suffer for it. 

Former NJ governor (Kean) talks up current NJ governor (Christie) for president

By Michael J.W. Stickings

National Review reports on a possible Chris Christie "boomlet":

Former New Jersey governor Tom Kean, who has known Chris Christie since he was a teenager and remains an informal adviser, tells National Review Online that the governor is "very seriously" considering a presidential bid.

"It's real," Kean says. "He's giving it a lot of thought. I think the odds are a lot better now than they were a couple weeks ago."

Christie remains undecided, Kean says, but is listening closely to pleas from party leaders. The chance for a "Jersey guy" to rise, Kean says, is not something Christie has sought. But now, with the field up for grabs, he is actively mulling a late entry.

"More and more people are talking to him," Kean says. "He's getting appeals from major figures around the country." Kean, for his part, is also encouraging the first-term Republican to jump in. "He is the best speaker I may have ever heard in politics," he tells me.

"In an era when most people suspect that politicians read polls and then tell you what they think, people don't believe he's that kind of a fellow," Kean says. "He tells you what he thinks, period. We like that around here."

I'm not buying it.

First, a lot of people are talking to a lot of people about running, given the general weakness of the GOP presidential field. Kean might as well be talking about Palin or Giuliani.

Second, no one really wants a "Jersey guy" in the Oval Office, or at least not Republicans.

Third, if Christie doesn't care about polls, it may be because the polls don't exactly make him look good. He's deeply unpopular in his own state. And if he couldn't even win New Jersey...

Fourth, getting back to the whole "Jersey guy thing," Republicans also don't like people who tell you what they're thinking when what they're thinking isn't right-wing orthodoxy. And Christie has proven -- much to his credit, I might add -- that he's anything but an orthodox right-winger. For example, while there may be quite a bit to recommend him to conservatives (including to the extremist base that votes in GOP primaries), such as his penchant for union-bashing, he actually appointed a Muslim to the state judiciary and, when attacked for doing so by those on the right fearmongering about Sharia law, called such concerns "crap," pointed to the "ignorance" behind the criticism, and said he was "tired of dealing with the crazies." That's no way to talk about your own party, particularly if you want to be its presidential nominee -- which, in the GOP means cozying up to the crazies (just ask Mitt Romney).

Fifth, Christie may be a bully and a blowhard, but he isn't an idiot. He's got to know that if he got in he'd lose badly.

Like I said, I'm not buying it.