Shakespeare and Political Thought Essay 1Chris Pusateri2-12-13

In Mr. Bloom’s book titled Political Philosophy and Poetry he argues that Shakespeare is

still a relevant example in explaining what characterizes a great, sustainable political regime and

its characteristics thereof. Mr. Bloom begins his explanation by saying that in modern times

students in university no longer have the acquired knowledge (ground work) which is required to

imagine the world “outside the box”. He contends this places limits on the imagination due to the

lack of being accustomed to philosophical classics such as Shakespeare, homer, Socrates among

many others. Due to the un-exposure to such classical thinkers Bloom states such important

writings are “dying a rapid death” (bloom, p.2). Blooms belief is that without learning and

examining what some of the ancient philosophical thinkers thought students no longer have a

“ground” for understand our current world. To counter Booms argument I would explain to him

that students still are acquiring knowledge, but from various technological sources such as the

internet.

Although the internet is sometimes not advisable for academic research and study due to

un-credible sources it is surely a researcher’s island for a plethora of information. For bloom, on

the other hand, he seems most concern with the historical context, placing grave interest in books

for their reliability as a credible source. Bloom would further emphasize that the internet

disenfranchises the young generation in reading classic authors such as Shakespeare because

there is no reliance on that of a single author to further exercise an individual’s knowledge. To

close his argument Bloom, strongly suggest that what Shakespeare and other classics can best

1

teach students the values of both virtue and vice whereas other sources simply cannot. The ideals

of which will be explained later through the classic political philosopher, Machiavelli.

Philosophy is countered upon the individual and his or her ability to reason, while politics

constitutes ones philosophy in ways of social political structure by governing society. In this

sense political philosophy is the foundational framework for classical thinkers. Shakespeare

comes to light because he offers a metaphoric portal in understanding a society’s issues in

governing the “regime” through theatrical stories. Although explaining the society’s structure

through playwright may seem favorable to the majority in society, this of course does not come

with concern according to Bloom. The actor(s) ability to interpret and deliver political issues

concerning the public into an art may be misperceived as a fluke to the common man (Bloom,

P.4). Most commonly when the individual transcends political concerns through poetic writings

he is seen by others as committing a treasonous act for telling the truth. As Ron Paul once said

“truth is treason in an empire of lies” (End the Fed, Paul. Socrates’ got sentenced to death in

Greece under the pretence of corrupting the youth because he was spreading logical truth

throughout the lands of Greece. Now Bloom asserts this condemned act can be interpreted by

some as an “ideological weapon” for attempting to change the masses mindsets. To then go

against the governing political elites who control society. (Bloom, P.4).

In an authoritative nation state governed by many powerful bureaucrats it’s not

uncommon for individual commoners to be ploughed with fear of a violent death according to

Bloom (Bloom, P.4). The average citizen is such due to being accustomed to a certain regime

structure. Thus for the poetic he must find another way to deliver his important or theatrical

stories to the public (challenge). When the citizens are governed and used to a certain way of

2

life, they become more passionate about their own goals and experiences through selflessness

means. Making them not fit to appreciate poetry and its messages of beauty. In this mindset he

or she is only concerned for themselves. This selfishness by individuals can be perceived as not

acting virtuous but rather the other- vice. Aristotle would blame the politicians for placing

“halo’s of Selflessness” on the citizens because he believes the act of habituation (obedience) is

the goal of every lawmaker! Aristotle says this is the main determinant is a successful or failed

regime. Law makers who are successful and those who fail, to govern well, will be the

determining factor in a regimes self worth. In contrast Aristotle’s interpretation of the best

regime as having the most obedient citizens would undoubtedly be an abomination to

Americas Foundering Fathers if placed on the same scale in measurement. Ideally in the most

classical constitutional senses, we the people a, e supposed to control the governed!

Shakespeare argument in countering Aristotle’s idea of the best ruled regime would be

citizens would act virtuously and just in a civil society. For Shakespeare the man of great

political passions and education has a substantially better advantage to comprehend the

theatrical plays produced then the man who is uninterested in such passions (Bloom, P.5). In

retrospect the man with the “open mind” and will power to learn through education will

understand world politics and her regimes in the most logical sense.

I think Bloom is correct in his analysis that the best fit individuals who will contribute to

the political realms will be those who are indeed most educated but more so opened to new

ideas and constructs for a prosperous society. Honestly, if only those who were closed minded

governed, then there would be vigor unjust laws which would crumble the nation states status

3

among other more Just virtuous societies in the world. Machiavelli would say the best type of

society is one which was governed as a republic governed by a republican form of government.

Machiavelli’s view is best illustrated in his published work The Prince. He states in a free

society, there are three courses a “leader” can take to govern his people; include first to ruin

them, second to reside there in person, and third is to allow them to live under their own laws

but will create an oligarchy within the society. (Prince.16). Machiavelli concludes option three is

best for a just and prosperous nation state. The key to enabling the citizenry to live under a

governed republic Machiavelli states that the governed citizens must ensure there oligarchy

which they elect, is one which will protect their own interest and minority rights. If the noble

leader does not abide by such and strays from his political leadership, Machiavelli warns he will

lose support of his people because the leader is against their interest!

So Machiavelli suggest this leader under the republic, being constrained by his citizens

will hopefully establish, practice, and be able to sustain good relations with his citizens to have

a prosperous society.

4