If a resacralizer becomes Machiavellian, it does not mean the denial of morality or the abandonment of conscience. There is more than one fundamental Truth because, in moral process, exceptions are the rule. Political morality, played in a Machiavellian key, helps to avoid a false and oversimple dichotomy between ethical behavior conducted according to rules and ethical behavior that is responsive to the nuances of a given situation. The reason why one does not use a fan in winter is not disdain for fans but because it is too cool. In psychological language, what Machiavelli is doing, and what I'd like resacralizers to do, is to make a morality, and then an ideology, out of the shadow, out of those aspects of human psychology that we would rather disown.
Most political theory seeks to combat and deal with the shadow.
Machiavelli's approach is to embrace the shadow and go with its undeniably effective energies, rather than against them. Those of us involved in depth psychology need to struggle towards a new psychological valuing of the potential of political engagement itself. Involvement in the external world and passionate political commitment are as psychologically valuable, and no more shadow-y, than an interior perspective. But political involvement can surely also be a means of expressing what is best in humans, acknowledging the fact of our social being, that we are not the isolated, solipsistic monads that some psychological theories might lead us to believe we are. In clinical practice, such models would enable us to generate new readings of personal and collective political imagery.