Modern scholars have applied a variety of interpretations to Machiavelli's work. Some view The Prince as an anti-Christian work, a celebration of Classical pagan philosophy, while others have attempted to portray Machiavelli as a Christian moralist, pointing out the political evils of the world around him. Some see The Prince as a book of despair, an anguished chronicle of fallen human nature, while others find in Machiavelli a clear-eyed realist and an accurate observer of the political sphere of life. Some have explained The Prince's apparent immorality as amorality, a morally-neutral scientific analysis of the workings of politics, without approval or disapproval. More than one writer has proposed that The Prince is in fact a satire, a warning of what may happen if rulers are allowed to pursue power unchecked. In this view, Machiavelli is the passionate defender of republicanism, the champion of liberty, who describes the workings of tyranny so they can be resisted. Others find in The Prince a blueprint for totalitarianism, carried to its logical and horrible conclusion in regimes like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Bertrand Russell called The Prince "a handbook for gangsters," and Leo Strauss called Machiavelli "a teacher of evil."
In more recent times, popular interest in Machiavelli's philosophy has focused more on money than on politics or morality. In an age in which democratic governments predominate, the last arena in which princely power can be pursued with abandon is that of business. Modern business executives seeking advice on effective leadership have resurrected Machiavelli, along with a host of other military and political strategists. One can find any number of contemporary advice books purporting to offer Machiavelli's insights, including What Would Machiavelli Do? (a devilish subversion of the popular catch-phrase "What would Jesus do?"), which may or may not be a satire.
