Thomas Aquinas is also an idealist. Aquinas states that “Granted that the world is ruled by Divine Providence…the whole community of the universe is governed by Divine Reason.” (ST, I-II, 91.1). He explains the concept of eternal law wherein power is given divinely. He goes on to say “the very idea of the government of things in God the Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law. And since Divine Reason’s conception of things is not subject to time but is eternal, according to Prov. viii, 23…this kind of law must be called eternal.” (Ibid.). It is through eternal law that God can govern his subjects. As humans have free will, they stray the perfect governance of God and follow natural law. Natural law is just the way in which humans interpret and follow eternal law. This theology is idealist as it is unrealistic that humans will follow the natural law perfectly and strive to do good and avoid evil. He also states that political society is created to meet the needs of human nature rather than by human’s own ingenuity. Machiavelli is more of a realist as he sees the world through a pessimistic view. He sees people as self-interested and calculating rather than what people ought to be. He speaks frankly about the downfalls of mankind and their He writes about how one should go about getting and maintaining power in the realm of greedy self-interested individuals. Like Plato, he argues that “a wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great men” (41) or in other words, only some are suited to lead. Similarly, to Plato, Machiavelli believed in lying for the sake of the greater cause. While Plato wrote about the noble lie, Machiavelli states that a good prince has the five qualities: mercy, faithfulness, humanity, religiosity, and uprightness. He goes on to say that the prince did not necessarily need to meet these criteria he just needed to “appear to have them.” He is essentially saying that lying is ok if it is for the greater good. Machiavelli speaks very bluntly about the nature of man and what is needed to be successful and while this may seem pessimistic, it is much more realistic than the philosophers that came before him. His pessimistic but also realistic pint of view is evident when he says “Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. . .. Love endures by a bond which man, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present.” (Ch. XVII). His words are based in logic and basic truth as he recognizes that people will be quick to be disloyal and being loved is not enough. The ruler needs to have enough power and fear instilled to stop small rebellions. To maintain rule, the people need to obey. Both mercy and cruelty are needed. John Locke takes an even more realistic point of view as he studies man in the state of nature. He alleges that people choose to enter into society consensually rather than out of fear. “Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.” In this way they enter into a contract with the government wherein they agree to follow the rules and in return the government will protect them and their rights. He says, “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” This is a more realistic philosophy as Locke combines what he knows about human nature and humans desire to have belongings and be safe. Since individuals will want to acquire and keep goods they will inevitably come into conflict and therefore be willing to consent to certain standards of behavior. Unlike Plato, John Locke sees the government as a representative of the interests of the people. In this way, the people have the right to replace the government if they fail to do their job. Lastly, Alexis de Tocqueville is the clear realist of the bunch as he recognizes both the pros and cons of democracy and equality but argues for the voice of the minority. He reflects on the sovereignty of the majority which he isolates as one of the important variables of American society. He states that this majority group has the potential to become tyrannical. He goes on to say that the very power and strength of American institutions could lead to their downfall as the powerful can become tyrannical. He also states that this power can be checked through America’s system of checks and balances. While he does say that he does not think France should copy America’s government, he does see many positives to American democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville studies the American “equality of condition”>