Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Machiavelli Reconsidered: What John P. McCormick Can Teach Us About Rebuilding Federal Governance

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Bill Brantley
December 19, 2025

For over a hundred years Machiavelli’s name has been associated with manipulation, dominant leadership and high-level political power. In contemporary American thinking (particularly among public administrators) a “Machiavellian” leader is someone to be wary of rather than admired. However, political theorist John P. McCormick contends that this common image overlooks what Machiavelli truly cared about: safeguarding freedom by giving regular people the power to counter unchecked elites.

McCormick’s books Machiavellian Democracy (2011) and The People’s Princes: Machiavelli, Leadership, and Liberty (2024) reinterpret Machiavelli as an advocate for “popular republicanism” rather than ruthless rulers. This perspective offers a new way to consider post-Trump U.S. governance amid declining trust and increasing polarization.

Rethinking Machiavelli: Not Elite Power but Popular Oversight

McCormick’s main point is that Machiavelli was not crafting political strategies for clever rulers or the elite. Rather, his works, especially the Discourses on Livy, reveal his distrust of wealthy elites who use political systems to serve their own interests.

In Machiavellian Democracy, McCormick argues that Machiavelli saw ordinary people as better protectors of liberty than elites who sought power. To address this, Machiavelli supported giving citizens real oversight over politicians through certain institutions:

  • citizen tribunals with the power to investigate and punish elite corruption
  • random selection (sortition) for public offices to reduce oligarchic capture
  • direct democratic assemblies with real authority on critical matters

McCormick refers to these as “anti-oligarchic institutions,” structures that encourage participation and restrain those who might threaten republican government. Contrary to common perceptions, this Machiavelli values ordinary people over elites and aims to ensure accountability within the republic.

Leadership Through Constraint: The Lessons of The People’s Princes

McCormick expands his reinterpretation in The People’s Princes concentrating on Machiavelli’s ideas about leadership. He suggests that Machiavelli did not favor strong leaders simply for their own sake. Rather, Machiavelli supported “princes” only if they took responsibility for safeguarding liberty by restraining elite factions. A “people’s prince” is defined as a leader who:

  • stands with the public instead of representing narrow elite interests
  • takes decisive steps to restore balance when corruption or oligarchs endanger the republic
  • respects institutional checks, recognizing that legitimacy relies on encouraging civic engagement
  • demonstrates deference to the law, affirming that no one stands above the republic

This leadership style is activist but not authoritarian. It uses authority to rebuild and enhance the civic power of citizens. McCormick’s framework provides a valuable perspective in the American setting by distinguishing between an executive who concentrates power for personal or partisan advantage and one who seeks to bolster democratic accountability even if this restricts the executive’s own influence.

Why Machiavellian Democracy Matters Now

The current political climate after Trump faces three key issues: widespread distrust of federal institutions, intense partisan divides and the perceived disconnect between administrative elites and the public. McCormick’s Machiavelli provides strategies to address each problem.

  1. Rebuilding Trust through Anti-Oligarchic Oversight
    Machiavelli’s idea of citizen oversight over elites is echoed today in citizens’ panels, participatory budgeting and review boards. To rebuild trust the federal government could:

  • establish national and agency-level citizen oversight councils with investigatory powers
  • include randomly selected citizens in key regulatory and ethics processes
  • use public service juries to assess top administrators

These groups would enhance not replace professional expertise by boosting legitimacy and accountability.

  1. Creating Systems that Resist Executive Overreach
    McCormick’s People’s Princes shows Machiavelli valued strong leaders only when they upheld republican freedom. Post-Trump reforms should focus on constitutional purpose not just presidential power. A Machiavellian approach supports:

  • expanding Congress’s independent oversight
  • limiting emergency powers and clarifying executive authority
  • protecting inspectors general from partisanship
  • improving whistleblower safeguards

These measures prioritize republican values over personal control.

  1. Revitalizing Civic Participation and Public Service
    Machiavellian democracy depends on citizens actively invested in governance. This principle supports current federal workforce reforms focused on transparency, public participation, representativeness and leadership in participatory governance. According to McCormick, Machiavelli’s ideas provide a philosophical basis for these changes: effective government requires engaged citizens rather than passive subjects.

Toward a Post-Trump Federal Republic

McCormick’s books aim to highlight Machiavelli’s commitment to liberty and popular empowerment, portraying him as a defender against oligarchic control rather than an advocate for power politics. This perspective offers public administrators guidance on building a more resilient, participatory and accountable federal system. McCormick shows that Machiavelli provided much of the framework; what remains is the political will to trust the people.


Author: Dr. Bill Brantley is the President and Chief Learning Officer for BAS2A, an instructional design consultancy for state and local governments. He also teaches at the University of Louisville and the University of Maryland. His opinions are his own and do not reflect those of his employers.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *