Response Essay: The Prince of Capital Hill

Heather Schmit

Brian Ganter

ENGL 104

May 21, 2015

When comparing the ideas proposed in Niccolo Machiavelli’s political treatise, ”The Prince”(1532) to the political and social strategies practiced by Frank Underwood, a corrupt United States Congressman, in “House of Cards: Season One”(2013), it became evident to see that they are one in the same. Both share cynical views regarding human nature and praise the concept of doing almost whatever it takes for “the greater good”, ultimately an empty word to shield personal goals. Although Frank embodies most of the concepts articulated in “The Prince”, such as the balance of being feared and loved, the acceptance of lying and making empty promises, and maintaining control with whatever means possible, he possesses more limitations as he is not ‘the ruler’ in his position…well, not yet.

As Frank must make sure that, as said by Machiavelli “…people don’t come to hate him.”(68) He must also be careful to not be seen as too cruel or ruthless, at least to his superiors and the general public, until he holds a more powerful position. Underwood’s strategy for approval consists of presenting himself to higher ups as a reliable and competent individual that passes bills and whips votes when need be. To the public, he puts on a face that represents humble beginnings and a devotion to Christianity as his visit to his home district, Gaffney, even shows him quoting the bible “Trust in the Lord with all of your heart” (S1.E03). Regarding Frank’s equals or other lesser members working in the White House, he is not afraid to reveal his ruthless nature and “resort to force as well” (69) His strategy differs slightly from Machiavelli’s however, as he combines law and force together to “strong-arm” individuals with less power to push laws, bills, and valuable information forward instead of using simply one or the other. In other words, Frank must be more calculated than Machiavelli suggests when he writes, “…he mustn't be concerned with the bad reputation that comes with those negative qualities” (61) as Frank’s position is more fragile than that of a great leader or ruler.

Since politics generally entail lying and making empty promises, it is of no surprise that they’re generally accepted in both “The Prince” and “House of Cards” as a way of being. The main approach to playing off deceit according to the author, and presumably Congressman Underwood, is to, “avoid them if they can; but if he can’t, he needn’t worry too much.” (61) With that said, Frank’s approach to most problems including, the changes to the education bill, opinion of Raymond Tusk for Vice president, and Peter Russo’s covered up DUI, was to lie as “…the truth would have ended the conversation before it began.”(S1.E05) This strategy to wait until after the trust of someone has already been betrayed to attempt to make amends is repeated again and again in the show since, “A ruler will never be short of good reasons to explain away a broken promise” (70) It is interesting to note however, that Frank’s wife is generally viewed as his escape from the lying and politics, but yet he would yell, “I will not be cornered into making promises I can’t deliver on”.”(S1.E09) when we know he is all too familiar with doing just that. Might this suggest that he respects Claire enough to make an exception, or might it also be a ploy to put Claire in her place?

Out of all the connections between these two sources, some transfer directly while others are only partly true, the importance laid upon maintaining control is the most directly adapted and most important. Resonating with Frank immeasurably, Machiavelli states that, “A sensible man will base his power on what he controls” (68). Underwood tends to avoid vulnerable situations by asking favours from no one, but instead finding situations in which to give favours or use blackmail, and then collect his reward further down the road, therefore establishing his control. Zoe Barnes, a reporter from the Washington Herald and then later a reporter for Slug line, and Peter Russo, a Washington Senator, are examples of both favour exchanging and blackmail techniques for Frank Underwood’s advancement. He does this because his cynical mind mirrors that of the author that, “…gratitude is forgotten the moment it’s inconvenient.” This statement is also confirmed when Zoe and Peter distance themselves from Frank later in the season. Despite this, Frank adapts to changing environments and does deeds “… that look wrong but will bring security and success,” (61) such as killing Peter Russo when he became too much of a liability. The only instance where Frank strays from his formula of never approaching someone with a favour without said person already ‘owing him’, is with his wife Claire. He asks her to turn down donations for her charity, for her help in drafting Peter Russo’s watershed bill, and for her assistance in persuading individuals to sway them to Frank’s will, all the while failing to return favours of equal value. Because of his lack of appreciation, “C.W.I. is important yes, but it doesn’t come close to what we’re trying to accomplish.” (S1.E10) he loses control of his closest partner. The only reason Frank is able to come out of these obstacles on top as Vice President, was because of his ability to recognize when control was being lost and act immediately to rectify the situation.

To conclude, Niccolo Machiavelli and Frank Underwood both endorse choosing when to “take on the traits of the fox and the lion” (69). This means that when in a position of power, there is always a balance between manipulation through ‘kindness’ or intellect and brute intimidation or force. After all, “The Prince” first and foremost preaches that doing immoral deeds, or breaking the rules, is necessary in securing power. So it is clear to me when Frank says, “Of all the things that I hold in high regards, rules are not one of them.”(S1.E13) that the Congressman is the realized essence of the concepts laid out in that historic piece of writing known as “The Prince”.