Of Foxes and Lions: Machiavelli in Modern Day Politics

"The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves." ~  Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

When Machiavelli first released "The Prince" in 1513, its public reaction was less than that of a New York Times bestseller. The book's ideals of instrumentality grated against humanist ideas of the time, and the Catholic Church banned the work entirely, adding it to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum registrar. Today, those who use "clever lies and tricks in order to get or achieve something; clever and dishonest" are described as being "Machiavellian." (Definition from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machiavellian)

So backwards against societal norms was Machiavelli's belief that immoral action was sometimes necessary as a tool in ruling a populous, especially for a newer prince in control of a territory. In Chapter XVIII does Machiavelli point out the need for a prince to possibly break faith when necessary - and such terms of necessity are more or less to the discretion of the prince, as he should so see fit to his plans or needs. Machiavelli goes on to suggest that a prince need not truly be "merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and upright," but to only appear to be as such. In this way, a prince must learn to be a true force to be reckoned: able to recognize dangers that may lie ahead, both visible and hidden, and cunning enough to avoid them and plan one's own, but also the ability frighten off any potential competitors for power.

This all sounds like sound advice for the situation at hand, when countries typically vied for physical land and resources, and families often fought for power, often resulting in death to an overthrown ruler, but what about today, in modern politics? Some would argue that our elected leader, President Obama, is walking a line highly similar to what Machiavelli had envisioned for future leaders in regards to his handling of our bi-partisan government on various issues, from healthcare to the economy and international relations. To some, Obama appears to have a hot-and-cold approach to how he handles issues, Syria as an example. His back and forth intention (or lack thereof) for military intervention could appear to be stuttered hesitation from an incompetent leader, but to some is seen as a calculated play, continuously weighing new factors towards an ever-changing outcome, shadowing his inner fox. The attached article more closely examines the Syria issue in more expansive detail, highlighting upon the ideas of Obama's more fox-like traits:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-can-obama-be-neo-machiavellian/2013/09/13/4aaac302-1c08-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html)

In my personal opinion, while I believe it is entirely possible that Obama is capable of off-putting a decision in hopes of ushering in an alternative ending, I don't know that I would exact him to be quite as willful and exacting as Machiavelli's pet fox, and I see him more as a leader who is attempting to be tentative out of fear, even if at the expense of popularity or results.