Does any political scientist take ancient and medieval ideas that rulers should be just and virtuous seriously or have men like Machiavelli or Hobbes buried those antique ideas?

[u/DarkGodCthUwU]

Obviously few if any kings, archons, presidents, popes, and countless other forms of ruler perfectly lived up to ideals like justice and piety, but my understanding is that in ancient and medieval times, popular ideas of rulers and political authors often emphasized that the powerful need to be just, obey the laws of their people, and be pious according to their customs, with moderm authors like Machiavelli amd Hobbes popularizing the open discussion of the brutality and hypocrisy that often comes with politics that, in their view, could be necessary and a lesser evil not to be avoided for the state's well being. Do any political scientists take ideas like the necessity of virtue in rulers or sanctity of law and custom seriously or is that all just old cope?

[u/DepartmentofNothing]

Political science is the study of (by one definition) who gets what, when, and how, it's not really intended to provide didactic guidelines for how to rule (though that hasn't stopped many political scientists from recommending policies). So while many political scientists have studied what you might call 'brutality' (the role and effectiveness of violence in state formation/stability/degradation) in many forms, they are not in the business of recommending when or how to apply violence.

Nor are Hobbes and Machiavelli 'modern' in any sense. Today we think of them as political theorists. There have been many political theorists since then, including John Locke and Karl Marx to name just two influential but long-dead ones, and more modern philosophers like John Rawls, Jurgen Habermas, etc -- hopefully someone better-versed can jump in here. In fact, while your question touches on evergreen topics, the way you framed it is straight out of medieval Europe. A great deal has happened since.

So the short and literal answer to your question is 'neither.' The longer, more interpretive answer would be that many political scientists have studied rule of law and its role in state stability and prosperity, and it is generally thought to be an influential factor in securing both. Others have looked at the way cultural factors impact leadership selection and decision-making -- one of the major philosophical branches of political science, termed 'constructivism,' emphasizes just that -- and the images leaders try to project to those they govern.

[u/RoutineLast1909 → u/DepartmentofNothing]

I would concur and also recommend delving into “Critical Constructivism” for further reading on this matter as it involves more IR (international relations) theory into the Analysis that will prove most fruitful in your Research and explorations into the underlying theories

[u/Will-Wisp]

You’re talking about normative political theory, which is kinda similar to political science and is often taught and studied in polisci departments, but is strictly speaking not science. A political scientist might have some background in political theory, but the material and subject matter vary wildly by department.

Machiavelli and Hobbes invented “modernity” though as another commenter pointed out they are not considered “modern” in the colloquial sense. Hobbes spends every other line of Leviathan bitching about Aristotle because he sees himself as needing to supplant the ancient way of thinking.

The ancient way of thinking is not necessarily how people actually lived. A large part of Machiavelli’s objection to both Socrates and Christianity is that both on some level deny the “goodness” of political life over a private one of philosophy/religion. This is a vast over simplification, but virtually every subsequent theorist since Machiavelli is in a way Machiavellian (with notable exceptions) as the philosophical emphasis is turned towards politics as the highest form of human activity instead of away. So Machiavelli can get what he wants (free Italy/reestablish Roman virtue/eternal glory) he needs to point out every one in the church is a hypocrite and if you want power you “have to learn how to not be good.” Socrates seems to think that politics is a sort of necessity so philosophical life can exist, but that politics is itself not the highest life.

The research of political science has not a lot to do with normative theory. The most prominent example of someone who is an actual political scientist who does (imo) seriously engage in political philosophy is Francis Fukuyama. Before I’m laughed out of the room, if anyone actually bothered to read all of the End of History and the Last Man (especially the last 5 chapters and the footnotes), they would know that he considers the possibility that the ancient way of thinking about human life may provide a more “useful” (though not necessarily “True”) framework for considering human life and desires. The book seeks to examine the political-philosophic battle between Plato, Hegel, and Nietzsche, and is certainly not a liberal triumphalist work.

[u/RoutineLast1909]

Seems like you have a Normative perspective on what “ought to be” Rather than “what is,” as a political Scientist, I would refer you to read more Machiavelli particularly his Discourses on Livy about Ancient Greek and Latin antiquities and his spin on modern political philosophy as the Farther of Political Science

[u/Rikkiwiththatnumber]

Not an answer to your question, but I really like Alison McQueen's work on Machiavelli as an apocalyptic thinker. So the positive, rather than normative, scholarship on these thinkers has continued.