The Makeup of a Leader: A Critical Reinterpretation of Machiavelli Through Moses and Moral Intention

THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 1 The Makeup of a Leader: A Critical Reinterpretation of Machiavelli Through Moses and Moral Intention David Matta American University of Beirut Lebanese Mindfulness Association THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 2 Abstract This paper offers a revised interpretation of Machiavelli's analysis of political founding, focusing on his provocative comparison between Moses and other violent rulers. While Machiavelli famously claims that success in political leadership requires a willingness to "enter into evil," this reading collapses all forms of confrontation, authority, and coercive action into a single category of ruthlessness, thereby erasing essential distinctions in intention, moral vision, and legitimacy. Drawing on but moving beyond Leo Strauss's critique—which emphasizes the theological uniqueness of Moses—this paper argues that Machiavelli's theory fails to account for the moral phenomenology of leadership: why leaders act, for whom they act, and the ethical scope of their vision. By integrating a typology of intention (self-interest, partiality, universality), a differentiation between necessary and unnecessary force, and the concept of moral delusion drawn from contemporary moral psychology, I develop a revised theory of leadership that restores the distinction between egoistic cruelty and morally grounded confrontation. This framework engages with James MacGregor Burns's distinction between transactional and transformational leadership and Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development to ground the analysis in established scholarship. The result is a more comprehensive framework: the makeup of a leader, which incorporates moral purpose, intention, confrontation, and legitimate authority—elements that Machiavelli mistakenly conflates or ignores. The framework is operationalized through a five-dimensional analytical model and demonstrated through comparative application to contested historical leaders including Oliver Cromwell and Lee Kuan Yew. Keywords: Machiavelli, Moses, political leadership, moral intention, Leo Strauss, moral horizon, transformational leadership, political ethics, leadership evaluation THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 3 I. Introduction The figure of Niccolò Machiavelli continues to dominate discussions of political leadership, statecraft, and the nature of power. His bold redefinition of political necessity, his emphasis on deceptive appearances, and his rejection of traditional morality have made him both influential and infamous. Central to his argument in The Prince and Discourses on Livy is the claim that political success requires a willingness to "enter into evil" when circumstances demand it (Machiavelli, 1998, ch. XVIII). For Machiavelli, effective leadership is defined not by moral virtue but by flexibility, cunning, and the calculated use of force. Moral goodness is not only dispensable—it is dangerous. This view culminates in one of his most provocative assertions: that Moses, the biblical lawgiver, exemplifies the same political ruthlessness as Romulus, Theseus, and Cesare Borgia (ch. VI). Machiavelli's analogy between Moses and the violent founders of political orders has attracted extensive scholarly attention. For some, it represents the birth of modern political realism; for others, it marks the beginning of the secularization of biblical morality. Leo Strauss (1958) famously argued that Machiavelli's Moses must be understood as part of a broader project of undermining traditional moral and theological foundations. Strauss emphasizes that Machiavelli's recharacterization of Moses as a political founder, rather than a divine prophet, reveals the radical nature of his thought and its departure from both classical political philosophy and biblical tradition. Yet Strauss's critique remains rooted in theological and epistemological concerns: the tension between revelation and reason, and the impossibility of assimilating divine law into political philosophy. While this Straussian reading is indispensable for understanding Machiavelli's rhetorical strategy, it leaves unaddressed a more fundamental question: what is the moral structure of leadership itself? Machiavelli does not merely secularize Moses; he reduces him to a structural type of leader whose success depends on ruthlessness, deception, and coercion. This reduction erases important distinctions in intention, moral vision, legitimacy, and the nature of confrontation. By collapsing morally grounded confrontation into the same category as cruelty, Machiavelli presents an impoverished account of leadership—one that cannot differentiate between Moses and Borgia, between moral courage and manipulation, or between necessary force and gratuitous violence. The present paper aims to reconstruct a richer conceptual framework for understanding leadership by critically reinterpreting Machiavelli's analysis through the lens of moral intention THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 4 and the figure of Moses. Unlike Strauss, this interpretation does not focus on the divine origin of Mosaic law, nor does it depend on theological claims about revelation. Rather, it examines the phenomenology of intention—why leaders act, for whom they act, and how their moral horizon shapes their use of power. By introducing distinctions between self-serving ambition, partial or tribal loyalty, universal moral vision, and delusional moral psychology, this paper develops a multi-dimensional account of leadership: the makeup of a leader. This framework restores important moral and psychological distinctions that Machiavelli suppresses. It allows for an evaluation of violence not merely in terms of effectiveness but in relation to intention, proportionality, and the scope of ethical concern. It shows that moral goodness is not synonymous with weakness and that confrontation, when grounded in moral clarity, can be a manifestation of strength rather than cruelty. Drawing on James MacGregor Burns's (1978) foundational distinction between transactional and transformational leadership, Joanne Ciulla's (2004) work on the ethics of leadership, and Lawrence Kohlberg's (1981) stages of moral development, this reinterpretation challenges Machiavelli's universalization of ruthlessness and offers a more accurate and ethically grounded account of what makes a leader. The framework is operationalized through a fivedimensional analytical model and its utility demonstrated through comparative application to contested historical figures beyond the Moses-Borgia dichotomy. THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 5 II. Machiavelli's Moses: The Secular Founder and the Logic of Necessity Machiavelli's discussion of Moses in The Prince and Discourses on Livy is one of the most daring and unsettling moments in the history of political thought. By placing Moses in the same category as Romulus, Cyrus, Theseus, and Cesare Borgia, Machiavelli performs a radical conceptual move: he secularizes the biblical narrative and reinterprets the founding of Israel as an instance of political technique rather than divine vocation. Moses becomes a model not of holiness but of effective founding. This interpretive maneuver reveals the essence of Machiavelli's new political science, one grounded in necessity rather than virtue, coercion rather than persuasion, and human ingenuity rather than divine providence. In Chapter VI of The Prince, Machiavelli explicitly characterizes Moses as a founder who succeeded through force and violence: "And if one considers Moses… one will see that he had need to kill infinite men who were moved only by envy and opposition to his plans" (Machiavelli, 1998, ch. VI). The significance of this passage cannot be overstated. Moses, traditionally regarded as the archetype of moral authority and divine lawgiving, is reframed as a political operator whose success depended on eliminating rivals. Machiavelli encourages the reader to "consider him a mere man" who employed the same methods as secular founders. Whether or not Moses genuinely received divine guidance is irrelevant to Machiavelli's project; what matters is that he used force to secure obedience, unity, and institutional stability. This reduction of Moses to a political type reveals Machiavelli's deeper thesis: political founding is inseparable from violence, and leaders who refuse to engage in morally prohibited actions will inevitably be destroyed by those who do. Machiavelli does not merely adopt a realist perspective; he normatively recommends ruthlessness as an essential competency. As he asserts: "A prince who wishes to maintain his state must learn how not to be good" (ch. XV). The logic is straightforward: human beings are ungrateful, fickle, and deceitful; political orders are fragile; rivals and internal factions threaten stability; therefore, cruelty, deception, and preemptive force are not deviations from leadership but conditions of its success. In Chapter VIII, Machiavelli further systematizes this logic by distinguishing "wellused" cruelty from gratuitous violence. "Well-used cruelty" refers to violence applied decisively and early, in a manner that secures stability with minimal repetition. The key criterion is efficacy, not ethical legitimacy. What makes cruelty "well-used" is that it helps the ruler maintain power without continuous upheaval. Thus cruelty can be necessary, deception THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 6 can be useful, and moral virtue can be dangerous. This conceptual framework allows Machiavelli to treat Moses, Borgia, and Romulus as essentially interchangeable. The Problem with Machiavelli's Conflation The radical nature of this framework is precisely what provoked the strongest reactions among later thinkers. As scholars like Isaiah Berlin (1979) and Maurizio Viroli (1998) have noted, Machiavelli does not merely introduce a new method of political analysis; he inverts the traditional hierarchy of values, elevating political necessity over moral intention. Where the classical tradition—from Plato to Cicero—distinguished between tyrants and just rulers based on their ends and character, Machiavelli collapses this distinction. Moses is not important because he embodies divine justice or moral law; he is important because he is effective in founding a new political order. This collapsing of categories—prophet equals tyrant equals conqueror equals reformer—is one of the most problematic aspects of Machiavelli's thought. It is not only provocative but conceptually distorting. It obscures critical differences in intention (why one acts), moral purpose (what one seeks to bring about), legitimacy (whether the political project serves the good), scope of concern (self, tribe, nation, humanity), and the nature of confrontation (proportionality, restraint, or cruelty). The Machiavellian framework rejects all such distinctions, thereby reducing the complexity of political leadership to a single explanatory principle: political necessity is the measure of action. Machiavelli's Republican Commitments: A Necessary Qualification A complete reading of Machiavelli must acknowledge, as Quentin Skinner (1981) and J.G.A. Pocock (1975) have emphasized, that the Discourses on Livy presents a more complex picture than The Prince alone suggests. In the Discourses, Machiavelli expresses republican commitments, celebrating civic virtue, the rule of law, and the importance of popular participation in government. He admires the Roman Republic and argues that free institutions are more durable than tyrannies. This suggests that Machiavelli is not simply a theorist of amoral power; he has substantive views about the good political order. However, even in the Discourses, Machiavelli maintains his central thesis about founding. In Book I, Chapter 9, he argues that founders of republics, no less than founders of principalities, must act alone and use whatever means are necessary to establish order. Romulus's murder of his brother Remus is justified because it served the public good. The THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 7 difference between the Discourses and The Prince is one of institutional focus, not moral epistemology. Machiavelli's fundamental claim—that effective political founding requires "entering into evil"—remains intact across both works. What changes is the type of regime being founded, not the moral structure of the founding act itself. Thus, while acknowledging Machiavelli's republican sympathies, this paper maintains that his treatment of moral intention remains inadequate. Even in his most civic-minded moments, Machiavelli does not develop a vocabulary for distinguishing morally grounded confrontation from cruelty, or universal ethical vision from narrow self-interest. His framework remains structurally incapable of capturing these distinctions. THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 8 III. Beyond Strauss: Intention, Moral Vision, and the Critique of Machiavelli's Moral Flattening Despite its conceptual brilliance, Machiavelli's political theory suffers from a profound limitation: it collapses all forms of leadership into a single structure of power-seeking, coercion, and deception. This "moral flattening" is not merely an exaggeration—it is a structural feature of his thought. Machiavelli systematically erases distinctions in why leaders act, for whom they act, and to what moral horizon their actions aim. As a result, he conflates the tyrant with the prophet, the conqueror with the liberator, the self-interested dominator and the morally anchored leader. This section develops a new critique that moves beyond both Machiavelli's realism and Strauss's theological response. Where Strauss emphasizes the origin of Mosaic authority in divine revelation, the present argument focuses instead on the phenomenology of intention— the internal moral orientation of the leader, their scope of concern, and their understanding of good action. By restoring intention and moral vision as analytical categories, we can differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate forms of confrontation, between necessary and unnecessary violence, and between self-serving ambition and morally grounded leadership. 1. Goodness Is Not Weakness: Machiavelli's Anthropological Misstep One of Machiavelli's most problematic claims is that moral goodness is equivalent to weakness. He repeatedly contrasts "virtù" with "goodness," insisting that a ruler who wishes to survive must abandon traditional moral categories: "A prince who wishes to maintain his state must learn how not to be good" (Machiavelli, 1998, ch. XV). He further associates moral delicacy with "effeminacy" and softness (ch. XVI), suggesting that those who refrain from violence or deception are inevitably defeated by those who do not. This framing, however, rests on a mistaken anthropology. It assumes moral individuals lack the courage, resolve, or confrontational strength needed to face difficult political circumstances. Historical experience contradicts this assumption. Leaders such as Moses, Jesus, Gandhi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrate forms of confrontation grounded in moral purpose rather than cruelty or egoistic ambition. Their actions show that moral commitment can be a source of strength, not a hindrance. As Hannah Arendt (2003, p. 32) writes, "moral courage is perhaps the rarest and most formidable of virtues." Confrontation driven by integrity, responsibility, and a vision of the good is not passive or naïve; it is often more formidable than the violence of tyrants, precisely because it is anchored in principle. THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 9 Thus Machiavelli's claim that goodness induces fragility is not a description of reality but the result of a conceptual narrowing—reducing all forms of moral action to passivity. 2. Machiavelli's Erasure of Intention Machiavelli's framework evaluates leaders solely by the effects of their actions—their ability to seize, hold, and stabilize power. Intention plays no role in his appraisal. A ruler driven by self-glory, personal wealth, or the good of his people is judged by the same standard: whether he can maintain the state. This is a marked departure from the classical tradition. For Aristotle, intention determines the moral quality of action (Nicomachean Ethics, III.1). For Cicero, justice requires that rulers act for the common good, not for private interest (De Officiis, I.25). Machiavelli discards these distinctions entirely. The present critique restores the missing dimension by identifying three distinct types of intention. First, egoistic intention involves self-aggrandizement, wealth, and domination. Second, partial intention involves loyalty to a tribe, nation, or group, possibly at the expense of others. Third, universal or ethical intention aims at the good of both oneself and others, grounded in a moral vision. Two rulers may use similar means—force, confrontation, discipline—yet their actions differ radically based on the intention guiding them. Machiavelli cannot capture these differences because his theory is structurally indifferent to motivation. 3. Moral Delusion: The Missing Category in Machiavellian Analysis A critical addition to this reinterpretation is the category of moral delusion—situations in which leaders sincerely believe they are acting for the good, yet their moral horizon is distorted, partial, or pathological. Hitler is the paradigmatic example: he believed he served the German nation, but his moral framework was grounded in racial hatred, exclusion, and a catastrophic narrowing of ethical concern. Research in moral psychology provides theoretical grounding for this category. Jonathan Haidt's (2012) work on moral foundations demonstrates how sincere moral conviction can coexist with limited ethical scope, while studies of ideological fanaticism show that intense commitment to a cause does not guarantee the moral validity of that cause (Doris, 2002). Machiavelli's framework cannot differentiate between Hitler (deluded moral partiality), Borgia (egoistic domination), Moses (moral universalism), and Gandhi (nonviolent universalism), because he evaluates them purely by effectiveness, not by the validity of their moral horizon. The present critique shows that intention is not simply a matter of sincerity but THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 16 V. Reinterpreting Machiavelli: A Critical Reading Through the Makeup of a Leader Framework Machiavelli's interpretations of leadership—and especially his comparison between Moses and figures like Romulus or Cesare Borgia—can now be re-evaluated through the multidimensional framework introduced in the previous section. This reinterpretation does not deny Machiavelli's descriptive insights into power, nor does it ignore the strategic acumen of his analysis. Instead, it situates Machiavelli's claims within a more comprehensive moral psychology of leadership, revealing where his analysis is accurate, where it is incomplete, and where it is fundamentally mistaken. Correcting Machiavelli's Conflation: Moses Is Not Borgia Machiavelli's decision to place Moses alongside Borgia and the legendary city-founders introduces a structural equivalence based solely on effectiveness. Moses is described as a political founder who, "in order that his laws and orders should go forward, was forced to kill infinite men" (The Prince, ch. VI). Yet this conclusion rests on a reduction of Moses to one dimension: his use of force. The multi-dimensional framework shows why this is an oversimplification. In terms of intention, Moses acts for the liberation and moral transformation of his people, while Borgia acts for personal ambition and consolidation of power. In terms of moral horizon, Moses's vision is universal—concerned with justice, liberation, and covenantal ethics—while Borgia's horizon is narrow, serving only himself. In terms of means, Moses's confrontations are proportionate and tied to moral clarity, while Borgia's are manipulative and opportunistic. In terms of legitimacy, Moses's authority is grounded in a moral mission, while Borgia's authority rests on fear, opportunism, and dynastic calculations. Thus Moses and Borgia share superficial similarities in means but differ fundamentally in intention, moral vision, and legitimacy. Machiavelli's conflation obscures these essential differences. Expanding the Application: Oliver Cromwell and Lee Kuan Yew To demonstrate the robustness and utility of the framework beyond the Moses-Borgia dichotomy, this section applies it to two historically contested leaders: Oliver Cromwell and Lee Kuan Yew. Both figures have been celebrated and condemned, and both present challenges that a Machiavellian framework cannot adequately address. THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 17 Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658) led the Parliamentary forces in the English Civil War, signed the death warrant of King Charles I, and ruled England as Lord Protector. He has been variously interpreted as a champion of parliamentary liberty, a military dictator, and a religious fanatic responsible for atrocities in Ireland. A Machiavellian analysis would evaluate Cromwell solely by his effectiveness: he achieved power, maintained it, and transformed the English political order. But the makeup of a leader framework reveals a more complex picture. In terms of intention, Cromwell's motivations were neither purely egoistic nor purely universal. He sincerely believed he was serving God and establishing a godly commonwealth, placing him between partial and universal intention—a religious conviction that transcended personal gain but remained exclusionary toward Catholics and royalists. In terms of moral horizon, Cromwell's vision was expanding within Protestant England but catastrophically narrow toward Ireland, where his campaigns resulted in massive civilian deaths. In terms of means, Cromwell used necessary force against royalist armies but employed cruel and disproportionate violence in Ireland. In terms of legitimacy, his authority was contested: legitimate to those who saw parliamentary sovereignty as the true foundation of government, illegitimate to royalists and Catholics. In terms of moral courage, Cromwell genuinely confronted what he perceived as tyranny and injustice, though his moral clarity was distorted by religious absolutism. The framework thus produces a nuanced evaluation: Cromwell was neither a Machiavellian prince nor a morally universal leader. He occupied an intermediate position— sincere in moral conviction but limited in moral horizon, courageous in confrontation but cruel in application. This complexity is invisible to Machiavelli's monodimensional analysis. Lee Kuan Yew (1923–2015) served as Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990, transforming a small post-colonial city-state into one of the world's most prosperous nations. He has been praised as a visionary nation-builder and criticized as an authoritarian who suppressed political opposition and press freedom. A Machiavellian reading would celebrate Lee as a supremely effective founder who understood the necessity of firm control. But the framework reveals deeper distinctions. In terms of intention, Lee's primary motivation was the survival and prosperity of Singapore and its people—a partial intention (nation-centered) that nonetheless aimed at genuine collective welfare rather than personal enrichment. Lee lived modestly and was not corrupt. In terms of moral horizon, Lee's vision was expanding: he built a multiethnic society THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 18 with legal protections for minorities, though his horizon remained bounded by national interest and did not extend to political pluralism or dissent. In terms of means, Lee employed authoritarian methods—detention without trial, defamation suits against opponents, press restrictions—but avoided mass violence or systematic cruelty. His force was targeted and limited, though still problematic by liberal democratic standards. In terms of legitimacy, Lee's authority was contested: legitimate to those who valued stability and prosperity, contested by those who valued political freedom. In terms of moral courage, Lee confronted genuine existential threats to Singapore's survival and made difficult decisions under pressure, though he also avoided confronting the value of democratic participation. The framework thus evaluates Lee as a leader with partial but genuine intention, an expanding but bounded moral horizon, restrained but problematic means, contested legitimacy, and selective moral courage. He is neither a Machiavellian tyrant nor a morally universal leader, but a developmental authoritarian whose leadership cannot be reduced to simple categories. Table 2: Comparative Application of the Framework to Contested Leaders Dimension Oliver Cromwell Lee Kuan Yew Moses (for comparison) Intention Partial/Religious: Sincere but exclusionary; served God and Protestant England Partial/National: Genuine commitment to Singapore's welfare; not personally corrupt Universal: Liberation, justice, and moral transformation of his people Moral Horizon Narrow to Expanding: Broad within Protestant England; catastrophically narrow toward Ireland Expanding: Multiethnic inclusion; bounded by national interest; excluded political pluralism Universal: Covenantal ethics extending to justice and liberation for all Means Mixed: Proportional in England; cruel and disproportionate in Ireland Restrained Authoritarian: No mass violence; targeted repression of dissent; detention without trial Necessary/Proportional: Force tied to moral clarity and existential necessity Legitimacy Contested: Parliamentary champion or regicidal tyrant, depending on perspective Contested: Visionary nationbuilder or authoritarian suppressor of freedom Legitimate: Grounded in moral mission and covenantal purpose Moral Courage Distorted: Genuine courage in confronting tyranny; distorted by religious absolutism Selective: Confronted existential threats; avoided confronting value of democratic participation Present: Confronted injustice from moral clarity and responsibility Overall Assessment Intermediate: Sincere but limited; courageous but cruel in application; morally complex Intermediate: Genuine but bounded; developmental authoritarian; neither tyrant nor universal leader Exemplary: Universal intention, expanding horizon, proportional means, legitimate authority, moral courage This comparative analysis demonstrates the framework's capacity to produce nuanced evaluations of contested leaders. Neither Cromwell nor Lee fits neatly into Machiavelli's categories. Both exhibit mixed profiles across the five dimensions—a complexity that validates THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 19 the framework's analytical power while exposing the limitations of monodimensional effectiveness criteria. A Note on the Interpretive Diversity of Mosaic Narratives It should be acknowledged that the biblical portrayal of Moses is itself subject to interpretive diversity. Different religious traditions, scholarly approaches, and theological frameworks read the Mosaic narrative in varying ways. Some emphasize Moses's prophetic role; others his political leadership; still others his mystical encounters with the divine. The present argument does not depend on any particular confessional reading of Moses. Rather, it argues that whatever interpretation of Moses one adopts, the category of moral intention remains essential. Whether Moses is understood as a divine messenger, a national liberator, or a political founder, the question of why he acted and for whom he acted cannot be collapsed into the single dimension of effectiveness. Machiavelli's reading is reductive not because it is secular but because it is monodimensional. What Machiavelli Gets Right Machiavelli provides an accurate description of one type of leadership: the leader motivated by egoistic ambition in a world of unstable loyalties. His insights remain valuable— not as universal truths, but as particular insights about leadership under extreme conditions or in morally degraded environments. He accurately describes the mechanisms of coercive power, the role of appearances, the need for decisive action, the dangers of mercy in certain conditions, the fragility of political institutions, and the psychology of ambitious leaders. The present framework recognizes that Machiavelli is insightful about how some leaders succeed, but rejects his attempt to generalize these observations into an essential truth of leadership itself. What Machiavelli Gets Wrong Machiavelli errs in the universalization of cruelty, the misinterpretation of moral goodness as weakness, the erasure of intention, the inability to distinguish necessary from unnecessary violence, the conflation of prophets and tyrants, the exclusion of legitimacy and moral horizon, and the inability to conceptualize moral confrontation. The present reinterpretation transforms Machiavelli from a universal theorist of leadership to a theorist of one type of leader under one type of moral condition—an insightful but incomplete realism. Moses Recovered: A Non-Machiavellian Founder THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 20 Finally, this framework allows us to recover a richer reading of Moses. He confronts, but not out of cruelty. He uses force, but not out of egoistic desire. His intention is universal, not partial or tribal. His moral horizon is centered on liberation and justice. His legitimacy derives from the moral purpose of his mission. His confrontation is necessary, not excessive. His authority is grounded in moral vision, not domination. Machiavelli sees only the violence. This framework sees the ethical structure behind it. THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 21 VI. Conclusion: Leadership, Morality, and the Restoration of Intention Machiavelli's audacious redefinition of political leadership has shaped centuries of thought about power, strategy, and the realities of statecraft. His account of Moses as a founder akin to Romulus or Cesare Borgia reveals the cogency and provocation of his political realism. Yet this same move exposes the central limitation of his theory: its systematic erasure of intention, moral horizon, legitimacy, and the qualitative differences between forms of confrontation. By reducing all leadership to a single logic of necessity, Machiavelli conflates the tyrant with the prophet, cruelty with courage, domination with justice, and delusion with moral vision. His account recognizes the mechanics of ruthlessness but cannot comprehend the moral anatomy of leadership. This paper has argued that leadership is irreducibly multi-dimensional, and that the categories Machiavelli suppresses—intention, moral purpose, legitimacy, proportionality, and universal concern—are not optional moral ornaments but essential structural components of leadership itself. Through the makeup of a leader framework developed here, we recover distinctions that are indispensable for any comprehensive theory of political action. Leaders differ not only in their means but in their motivations, their ethical range, and the moral meaning of their confrontation with the world. By foregrounding intention, we can differentiate between egoistic ambition, tribal partiality, universal ethical vision, and the phenomenon of moral delusion. By restoring the category of moral horizon, we can evaluate the legitimacy of a leader's goals, not merely their success in achieving them. By distinguishing necessary confrontation from cruelty, and moral courage from domination, we recognize that goodness is not weakness and that moral leadership can confront with greater strength—and greater clarity—than any Machiavellian prince. Confrontation itself becomes a moral act when oriented toward justice and the good, not a sign of ruthlessness. Through this revised lens, Moses emerges not as Machiavelli's "armed prophet" whose success is explained only by force, but as a leader whose intention, moral vision, and legitimacy differentiate him fundamentally from the figures with whom Machiavelli associates him. Moses confronts not for personal dominance but for liberation and justice; his moral horizon extends beyond the self and beyond tribal boundaries; and his use of force is structured by proportionality and moral necessity, not opportunistic cruelty. Seen in this light, Moses is not THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 22 a Machiavellian founder at all—he is the exemplar of a distinct type of leadership that Machiavelli's categories cannot capture. The comparative application of the framework to contested leaders such as Oliver Cromwell and Lee Kuan Yew demonstrates its analytical utility beyond the original MosesBorgia dichotomy. These figures occupy intermediate positions across the five dimensions— profiles of moral complexity that Machiavelli's framework cannot capture but that the makeup of a leader framework illuminates with precision. More broadly, the makeup of a leader framework allows us to reinterpret Machiavelli not as a universal theorist of leadership but as a theorist of a particular type of leader operating under a particular conception of human motivation. Machiavelli's insights into the ruthlessness of power remain vital, but they describe only one segment of the moral landscape of leadership. A full theory must include not only strategic reasoning but the moral psychology that shapes political action. Ultimately, this paper calls for the restoration of intention and moral vision to the center of political philosophy. Leaders act within a moral horizon—narrow, deluded, partial, or universal—and this horizon determines the meaning and legitimacy of their actions. To evaluate leadership solely by effectiveness is to impoverish our understanding of it. A leader's greatness is measured not by their ability to dominate but by the moral purpose that animates their confrontation with the world. Leadership is not merely the art of acquiring power. It is the art of acting within a moral universe. And it is intention—far more than violence—that reveals what a leader truly is. Declarations Conflict of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest. Funding: This research received no external funding. Data Availability: No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. Use of AI Tools: AI writing assistants were used for formatting, organization, and editorial refinement of this manuscript. All theoretical frameworks, philosophical arguments, conceptual innovations, and intellectual content are the original work of the author. The author takes full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the work. THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 23 Author Contribution: David Matta is the sole author of this work and is responsible for the conception, design, analysis, and writing of this paper. References Arendt, H. (1970). On violence. Harcourt Brace. Arendt, H. (2003). Responsibility and judgment. Schocken Books. Aristotle. (2019). Nicomachean ethics (R. Crisp, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published ca. 4th century BCE) Berlin, I. (1979). The originality of Machiavelli. In I. Berlin, Against the current: Essays in the history of ideas (pp. 25–79). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1972) Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row. Cicero, M. T. (1991). On duties (De officiis) (M. T. Griffin & E. M. Atkins, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 44 BCE) Ciulla, J. (2004). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Praeger. Davis, J. C. (2001). Oliver Cromwell. Arnold. Doris, J. (2002). Lack of character: Personality and moral behavior. Cambridge University Press. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage. Havel, V. (1985). The power of the powerless (J. Keane, Ed.). Routledge. (Original work published 1978) Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press. Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: Vol. 1. The philosophy of moral development. Harper & Row. Lee, K. Y. (2000). From Third World to First: The Singapore story, 1965–2000. HarperCollins. Machiavelli, N. (1996). Discourses on Livy (H. Mansfield & N. Tarcov, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1531) Machiavelli, N. (1998). The prince (H. Mansfield, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1532) Pocock, J. G. A. (1975). The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton University Press. Singer, P. (1981). The expanding circle: Ethics, evolution, and moral progress. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Skinner, Q. (1981). Machiavelli. Oxford University Press. Strauss, L. (1958). Thoughts on Machiavelli. University of Chicago Press. THE MAKEUP OF A LEADER 24 Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press. Viroli, M. (1998). Machiavelli. Oxford University Press. Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars. Basic Books.