Should the US government be more or less Machiavellian?

Considering that this is a "Should" question, you will likely get dissenting opinions.

However, to clarify: Machiaevellian is the ideal that cunning and duplicity should be used to achieve political ends, and an idea that these ends justify whatever means were used to achieve them.

Answer 1 - No

The idea of Machieavellian machinations is entirely opposed to the transparency and human rights that fundamentally undergird the US political system. The transparency comes to the fore as regards politicians and legislation. When people elect a politician, they expect that politician to advocate what it is that he was voted into office for. This is as opposed to using one set of ideals when running, but implementing a wholly different set when governing. As concerns human rights, these inhibit the actions of government in such a way to protect the citizenry. Machiavellians have no objection to the use of torture provided such acts are either performed secretly (so that there is no negative reaction) or if torture is acceptable. Machiavellians are more concerned with the appearance of propiety than actual propiety, which would lead to increasing violations of civil liberties such as wiretaps, unlawful searches and seizures, and other issues.

Answer 2 - Yes

Often, the US public has very little idea of what it actually wants and desires. They vote in politicians often based on one statement, their supposed party, or the way their hair is coiffed. Politicians should take advantage of these unsuspecting voters to grow and expand their power in methods that would benefit the United States government. Many critical changes in US policy are not currently popular, such as tax increases or public welfare program adjustments, but these things need to be done. Politicians who can put forward and pass these necessary pieces of legislation while being able to put the egg on someone else's face can stay in power longer to better protect the US from its American citizenry.