Niccolo Machiavelli would clearly fall into the first category in the first sentence of the following statement:
"There are two ways of being unpolitical: to think that politics can do everything, and to think that politics can do nothing. The first leads to Utopianism and fanaticism, the second to Epicureanism and apathy; yet despite their opposite effects, both are symptoms of the same disease, a failure of realistic vision."
Machiavelli may not believe that politics (as condensed in the person and power of the prince) can do literally everything, but in the mere act of writing a book such as The Prince, he has made clear that he believe politics, through the effective and ruthless prince, can do much, or whatever the prince might dream of doing with such power. Therefore, if forced to decide, Machiavelli would clearly place himself in the category of those who believe that "politics can do everything." This reader would agree with Machiavelli's likely self-assessment to this point.
The conclusion of the statement above is that believing that politics can do everything will lead to Utopianism and fanaticism, and will not lead to a realistic assessment of politics, political leaders, and their power to bring about change. Of course, Machiavelli would disagree that he himself advocated a Utopia, that he encouraged fanaticism (or was himself a fanatic), or that he was unrealistic. This reader would disagree with Machiavelli on this point and would argue instead that he did encourage fanaticism in his ideal prince, and that any prince who ruled with the kind of ruthlessly amoral attitude of Machiavelli's prince would sooner or later become a fanatical leader, as history has proved time and time again with such amoral leaders who accrue great power to themselves. Machiavelli urges his prince to do whatever is necessary to gain and maintain power, and the actions required to fulfill this model will inevitably divorce the lea...