Following Jesus or Machiavelli?

on Christians embracing wicked politicians

image courtesy of HBO Max

This past weekend I finished binge watching the HBO satire, Veep. For a time, it filled the foul-mouthed comedy void Succession left behind. The series, an adaptation of the UK’s The Thick of It, follows Vice President Selina Meyer and her band of cronies as she relentlessly gropes after power.

While much of American political life feels dominated by party and religious affiliations, Meyer’s political party is never named, neither is her religion (except when she repeatedly asserts that she is “not Jewish.”) In the world of Veep, party and religious ideals are only tools used to gain more power. By the end of the series, Meyer has sold out virtually every principal, ally, and friend she had in the pursuit of becoming president. A group of former Obama aides have declared that Veep is the show that paints national politics most accurately, which is pretty depressing.

All of which led me to wonder: is politics doomed to be the graveyard of moral principals? Is our political process designed to sort out the most ruthless, Machiavellian types and catapult them into leadership? And is this any sort of field for those who profess to be Christian?

ICYMI, Machiavelli was a 16th century Italian political philosopher, famed for teachings like “it’s better to be feared than loved,” and “the ends justify the means.” He was a strict materialist, meaning he didn’t believe in god, the supernatural, or any kind of universal moral law. While 88% of American congressmen identify as Christian, Machiavelli’s words often seem more influential in our government than those of Jesus.

Trump’s endorsement by influential evangelical political leaders is one case in point. Even after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced, most stood by Trump, arguing that his pledge to appoint pro-life supreme court justices and move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was worth tolerating his complete ignorance of Christianity and many personal moral failings. This “ends justify the means” argument went so far as to compare Trump to the Biblical King Cyrus, a Persian ruler who freed the Israelites from captivity, as faulty as that comparison may be.

Is it even possible to engage in politics while hanging on to one’s integrity? This Fall, I’ve been participating in a workshop to learn how to advocate effectively in front of state and local legislatures. One thing I’ve learned so far is the difference between activism and advocacy—activists are free to say “let’s burn down the whole rotten system and start over” while advocates need to learn to live with compromise and incremental change. To be an effective advocate, you have to build a coalition, and that often means working with people you disagree with in support of a common goal.

Advocates must also learn to tailor their message to their audience. That means if you are advocating for universal preschool, you might talk to a pro-business legislator about the return on investment for such programs rather than racial equity.

Some wheeling and dealing is built into the system, to be sure. But there is a line between being an effective advocate and a sell-out. Outright lying and seeking personal advantage at the cost of the collective good are common political practices that we should abhor rather than celebrate, even if our side is “winning.” But for many in American politics, a win-at-all-costs mentality has eclipsed a commitment to principals. It’s as if we want the other side to lose more than we want our side to win.

This “maintain control at all costs” mentality seems to me like a large part of the Gordian knot that is Evangelical Trump support. Evangelical theology is, in many ways, geared towards control rather than winning people over. We can see that on an individual level as peoples’ behavior is policed using the fear (of exclusion and/or Hell) and we can see that on a national level with “religious freedom” bills used to promote prejudice.

As we looked at in Jesus and John Wayne, Evangelicals have long fought to maintain cultural and political relevance in a rapidly shifting society. Trump is appealing not despite his “strong man” authoritarian streak, but because of it.

But people do not like being controlled. If Evangelicalism is going to survive, it needs to back away from Christian Nationalism and work on crafting a more compelling argument, one that addresses Millennial and Gen Z concerns. Otherwise it will die out with the Baby Boomers.

Will that happen? I doubt it. Once you begin to see people not as people, but as instruments to get what you want, it’s hard to stop. Just ask Selina Meyer.

Where do you see Machiavellianism at work? Are there certain values you feel should never be up for compromise? And how Machiavellian are you? You can take the official test here. Leave a comment so we can keep the discussion going.

Have a friend who’s depressed by the state of politics? Why not share this post?

Bonus Materials:

-Machiavelli scholar, Erica Benner, on why we should read The Prince: “He’s trying to show ordinary citizens the ways that ambitious people get to power, and how those people may appear to be solutions to problems but in the end only make things worse. He tells the people, if you indulge a politician who promises to fix everything if only you give up a little more power, you will suffer far more down the line.”

-Wikipedia page on the psychological trait of Machiavellianism and the “Dark Triad”