Hobbes and Machiavelli laid the foundations for this reconciliation of liberalism and republicanism. One sought peace above all, the other war. For the sake of peace, one favored the people; for the sake of war, the other promoted the interests both of the nobles and of the people to the extent compatible with that end. That end of Machiavelli, though, dictates that the love of glory and the desires for preeminence and domination flourish among the few – precisely those passions that produce those political occurrences, war and internal oppression, from which the many flee.

Because Cato's thought represents the final synthesis, one can use it to assess the degree to which these two thinkers achieved their ends. Cato shows us that Hobbes's purpose ultimately won out, although his means did not. Nevertheless, this is a significant win for Hobbes's ambitions. Moreover, perhaps because of the addition of Machiavellian ferocity in service of the people's interest in peace and commodious living – interests repulsive to Machiavelli – modernity's purposes have all the more potency. Rather than arming an all-powerful sovereign, the people are to protect themselves with a Machiavellian ferocity; the people's purposes are given a more vigorous protection because they guard their interests for themselves with an intense vehemence born of an acute fear – an understanding that derives from the analyses of both Machiavelli and Hobbes – of violent death in war and of tyrannical oppression at the hands of the few.