I am, finally, returning to my book, which is pretty much and extension of the theme of this blog: ancient Chinese thought in modern American life.  I am on chapter six, which deals with Daoist and Confucian views of public life and politics.  Thus, I am reading through the basic texts yet again, a task I thoroughly enjoy.  When I came upon Analects 1.8, which Hinton translates as:

The Master said: "If you're grave and thoughtful, people look to you with the veneration due a noble.  And if you're learned, too, you're never inflexible.

"Above all else, be loyal and stand by your words.  Never befriend those who are not kindred spirits.  And when you're wrong, don't be afraid to change."

What struck me was the advice to balance loyalty and sincerity with flexibility and openness to change.  That is not an easy thing.  On the face of it, loyalty, suggests a kind of inflexibility, a defense of certain interests and personal relationships.  But, Confucius seems to be saying, these cannot be absolute.  If your choices turn out to be wrong, then you have to change, which suggests a release of loyalty and a reinterpretation of sincerity. 

This brought to mind a post by Andrew Sullivan the other day, about another conservative pundit, in which he quoted Machiavelli to the effect of: "This is the tragedy of man. Circumstances change, and he does not." I'm not sure where this direct quote comes from in Machiavelli.  The closest I could find was this, from The Prince:

Consequently, as I have said, two men, acting differently, may achieve the same results; and if two men act in the same way, one may succeed and the other fail.  From this, again, arise changes in prosperity; because if a man acts cautiously and patiently, and the times and circumstances change in ways for which is methods are appropriate, he will be successful.  But if the times and circumstances change again, he will come to grief because he does not change his methods….

Of course, there is a key difference between Machiavelli and Confucius: the latter was interested in flexibility in the pursuit of Humanity, ultimately a moral goal and standard.  Machiavelli was, infamously, less constrained by morality.  He urged flexibility as a means of maintaining power as a good in and of itself. 

In any event, it would seem, for either good moral practice or power political concerns, effectively leadership requires a certain flexibility….