NationStates Jolt Archive

It appears so to myself; consider:

Gaius Julius Cæsar: An insatiable rake who killed non-combatants, Cæsar used what little time he was in power to greatly reform Rome, such as introducing to insolvent debtors bankruptcy as an alternative to enslavement.

Cesare Borgia: A blatant egotist who seemed unable to comprehend compassion, was the more benevolent as ruler in Italy, then any other in his time. He loved killing rival leaders, but he almost never allowed his troops to pillage--mercy which was virtually unheard of at the time.

Tokugawa Ieyasu: He swore an oath of protection concerning Hideyori, son of Toyotomi Hideyoshi; he later killed his charge, along with Hideyori's family. Tokugawa then brought Japan an era of peace and prosperity.

Richard Milhous Nixon: A corrupt and probably egocentric liar. Yet except for neglecting to end the Vietnam War, Nixon's was largely a positive effect upon the nation; but for the Watergate scandal, he might easily be remembered as the greatest Republican president of the 20th century.

Yes, immoral people can be great leaders, if amoral motives like a desire to maintain their power bring them to act justly and wisely in their public role as leaders.

But I'm not sure I agree with your choices of great leaders.

ONLY an immoral person can be a Great Leader.

Morality is a good quality for a regular person, a flaw for a leader. By the nature of the job, the leader has to make immoral decisions. And I mean any leader, starting from the lieutenant who has to shoot a wounded soldier to win the battle.


However, too many Great Leaders are worse for their nation than none at all. People live better under just good leaders - great ones work for the future.

But I'm not sure I agree with your choices of great leaders.

Whom among them perturbs you?

Immoral? Yes. Politics involve a factor of surprise only achieved by immorality. Strong morals tend to make leaders too predictable.

Amoral? Not so. Then again, it is debatable if people can be amoral, as long as they retain even a small thread of sanity.

You could add that Nixon's handshake with Mao may have arguably been the most important handshake since WWII as it hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of China as a great power.

As for the phrase great men, most people know the first line of Lord Acton's quote but not his second one:
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Great men are almost always bad men."

ONLY an immoral person can be a Great Leader.


However, too many Great Leaders are worse for their nation than none at all.

?

http://vscorps.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/big-brother.jpg

http://web1.caryacademy.org/facultywebs/delia_decourcy/7th%20grade%20English/AnimalFarm/snowball_napoleon.gi

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b8d734b3127ccec54bd6e9b10100000040O00IYsmrNo2csQe3nwI/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D480/ry%3D320/

I have not the faintest idea of what you mean.

Great men are almost always bad men.

In the context of the first part, though, "great" is probably being used in the sense of "powerful" rather than in any evaluative sense of "good."

Leadership is a skill, both good and bad people use their skills to meet their objectives. So yes, one can be evil yet at the same time an excellent leader.

Nearly all "great leaders" were immoral and harsh. I mean, imagine if a leader demanded something, and when somebody complained he backed down. He would be looked at as weak, and nobody would like him.

Certainly, especially if their immorality is in an area unrelated to their leadership. A heck of a lot of leaders both great and lousy have cheated on their spouses over the centuries, to pick the most obvious example.

The Great man in Russia, Vlad the Impaler is pretty bad. He likes to jail and assassinate his opponents. But he seems popular in Russia.
You know all that claptrap - make Russia strong again!

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Great men are almost always bad men."

Augustus Cæsar was greatly reformed by his power.

Augustus' wife Livia did a lot of the dirty work for him. She was a poisoner.

I have not the faintest idea of what you mean.
See the edit.

People live better under just good leaders. Great leaders see into the future and work for it, but that leads to overlooking those around them right now. Rule of a great leader is the time of reform, and it hurts the people.



Certainly, especially if their immorality is in an area unrelated to their leadership.
And even better if it is in areas related.

The Great man in Russia, Vlad the Impaler is pretty bad. He likes to jail and assassinate his opponents. But he seems popular in Russia.
You know all that claptrap - make Russia strong again!

Not to pick nits, but Vlad the Impaler was Romanian, not Russian.

Augustus' wife Livia did a lot of the dirty work for him. She was a poisoner.

Source?

With the exception of Nixon (who I'd agree is an immoral great leader), all your examples are from much bloodier times and places. Sure, by modern standards they were treacherous, blood-soaked tyrants, but that could be said to be as much a symptom of their time and place as anything else.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livia#Livia.2C_Roman_empress

Rumor had it that when Marcellus, nephew of Augustus, died in 23 BC, it was no natural death, and that Livia was behind it (Cassius Dio 55.33.4). One by one, all the sons of Julia the Elder by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa died: first Lucius and then Gaius, whom Augustus had adopted as his sons, intending them to be his successors. Finally Agrippa Postumus, Julia's one remaining son and also adopted as Augustus' son, was also incarcerated and finally killed. Tacitus charges that Livia was not altogether innocent of these deaths (esp. Annals 1.3; 1.6), and Cassius Dio also mentions such rumours (53.33.4, 55.10A, 55.32; 57.3.6), but not even the gossipmonger Suetonius, who had access to official documents, repeats them. Most modern historical accounts of Livia's life discount the idea. There are also rumors mentioned by Tacitus (Annals 1.5) and Cassius Dio (55.22.2; 56.30) and popularized by Robert Graves's fictional novel I, Claudius that Livia brought about Augustus' death by poisoning fresh figs.

Grain of salt.

snip*

"Rumors" mentioned by the extremely anti-imperial Tacitus? Next you will tell that Cesare Borgia had sexual relations with his sister.

Can an immoral person be a great leader?

Depends on how you define "great leader".

In the words of Niccoló Machiavelli:
It cannot be called virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, betray one’s friends, be without faith, without pity, and without religion; by these methods one may indeed gain power, but not glory.

"Rumors" mentioned by the extremely anti-imperial Tacitus? Next you will tell that Cesare Borgia had sexual relations with his sister.

You asked for a source, I provided. Attack the source all you want, but what did you expect? Detailed records and forensic evidence from AD 14?

*snip

Fluff to please the Catholics; he says in the same book that one "need not be religions", just appear to be so. And he makes it clear that "the ends justify the means" in his Discourses.

Reinhard Heydrich was an incredible leader during his time as Reichsprotektor, turning Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia in to one of the most strategically crucial regions for German war production. It was also, with the exception of perhaps Denmark one of the safest and most secure regions under Nazi occupation.

As you know, he was also one of the most dangerous leaders in the Reich, feared by both Allied and Nazi alike. He was also a brutal anti-Semite and the author of the Final Solution (indeed, the plan to murder the Jews in the General Government of Poland was named Operation Reinhard) so he more than any other member of the Nazi regime fits the definition of immorality and evil in a "great" leader.

I'd go so far as to say that describes the Nazi regime itself quite accurately. Great leaders that were capable of and willing to use great evil to advance their goals.

You asked for a source, I provided. Attack the source all you want, but what did you expect? Detailed records and forensic evidence from AD 14?

Are you saying that history's only sources are rumors?

Reinhard Heydrich was an incredible leader during his time as Reichsprotektor, turning Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia in to one of the most strategically crucial regions for German war production. It was also, with the exception of perhaps Denmark one of the safest and most secure regions under Nazi occupation.

As you know, he was also one of the most dangerous leaders in the Reich, feared by both Allied and Nazi alike. He was also a brutal anti-Semite and the author of the Final Solution (indeed, the plan to murder the Jews in the General Government of Poland was named Operation Reinhard) so he more than any other member of the Nazi regime fits the definition of immorality and evil in a "great" leader.

Hell, I'd go so far as to say that describes the Nazi regime quite accurately. Great leaders that were capable of and willing to use great evil to advance their goals.

Killing millions of innocents for no other "goal" than "purging" makes them clearly bad leaders.

Are you saying that history's only sources are rumors?

No. Where the hell did you get that?

Fluff to please the Catholics; he says in the same book that one "need not be religions", just appear to be so.

[QUOTE=The Parkus Empire]And he makes it clear that "the ends justify the means" in his Discourses.

"The ends justify the means is a terrible mistranslation.

The simplistic formula used to summarize
Machiavelli's complex view of politics and ethics ('the end
justifies the means') is actually a gross mistranslation that has
erected an almost insurmountable barrier to an understanding
of Machiavelli's thought. The mere mention of this phrase
conjures up a vision of power-mad rulers pursuing immoral
ends by even more immoral means, but Machiavelli never spoke
of justification here and merely remarked that 'in the actions of
all men, and especially of princes, where there is no impartial
arbiter, one must consider the final result' (si guarda al fine).
Even in its correct form, the concept is of moral interest.

Machiavelli is subtler than some moralists have appreciated.
He never imagined that any sort of political action could be
justified, and he clearly pronounces his awareness of conven*
tional moral exigencies. He condemns politicians whose only
aim is power, who kill their fellow citizens, betray their friends,
and who are without faith, mercy, or religion: 'By these
means,' he says, 'one can acquire power but not glory.' Power
does not confer glory, nor is might synonymous with right.
The merely powerful are set apart from praiseworthy princes
precisely because of the ends towards which they strive.

The only goal Machiavelli ever offers in all his works, The
Prince included, that may excuse acts judged violent or im*
moral by traditional Christian standards is that of establishing
a self-sufficient and stable body politic.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97573377

Killing millions of innocents for no other "goal" than "purging" makes them clearly bad leaders.

No, they had a very clear goal. The goal was to "purify" Europe by murdering everyone who didn't fit that idea. This wasn't random killing, it was probably the most methodical and efficient mass murder in human history.

No, they had a very clear goal. The goal was to "purify" Europe by murdering everyone who didn't fit that idea. This wasn't random killing, it was probably the most methodical and efficient mass murder in human history.

Efficacy is perhaps a necessary but certainly not a sufficient criterion for greatness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Collectivity
The Great man in Russia, Vlad the Impaler is pretty bad. He likes to jail and assassinate his opponents. But he seems popular in Russia.
You know all that claptrap - make Russia strong again!

'Not to pick nits, but Vlad the Impaler was Romanian, not Russian.'

Sorry Sjaelli, that was my little in-joke thing. I was referring to nice Mr Vladimir Putin (ex-head of KGB, ex-President of all the Russias, now just plain ordinary Prime Minister Putin):D

I think it is entirely possible to be an immoral person but a great leader. Especially since morality is so subjective anyway. There are plenty of people who find, for instance, Sarah Palin's stance on abortion rights to be moral and good, and plenty who find it absolutely repugnant.

That's right SJ IV, and some people may be "moral" but they're not very ethical.

"Sjaelli"

I've got to say, that's a new one.

Fluff to please the Catholics; he says in the same book that one "need not be religions", just appear to be so. And he makes it clear that "the ends justify the means" in his Discourses.
I never cease to be amused by how you dismiss anything your boy Machiavelli says that does not support your preferred interpretation of him. Tell me, is it a trait of great leaders that they enjoy picking cherries?

As to your OP question: It depends on how you define "great."

If you define "great" as merely being effective during his/her career, then yes, an immoral person can be a great leader. So can an unethical person, or a even a weak person if he/she is blessed with a decent team, or anyone of any quality or no quality, so long as he/she is popular. Hell, so can a raving lunatic, sometimes.

If you define "great" as having a beneficial effect on society that outlasts their tenure, then, yes, sure an immoral person can be a great leader, BUT NOT if they are also unethical and incompetent.

Morals are irrelevant to leadership. Ethics and skill are what count.

Depends on how you define "great leader".

In the words of Niccoló Machiavelli: "It cannot be called virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, betray one’s friends, be without faith, without pity, and without religion; by these methods one may indeed gain power, but not glory."Fluff to please the Catholics; he says in the same book that one "need not be religions", just appear to be so. And he makes it clear that "the ends justify the means" in his Discourses.I never cease to be amused by how you dismiss anything your boy Machiavelli says that does not support your preferred interpretation of him. Tell me, is it a trait of great leaders that they enjoy picking cherries?
Parkus is on the right track here.

Machiavelli, I think, would say that if one were to be the sole leader of a state, then one would have to be immoral in certain ways to 'keep the waters at bay' and help the state flourish. While appearing to be virtuous, Machiavelli's Prince would have to be invirtuous to rule correctly.

Of course, he'd get his head chopped off the next time the Republic got its act together.

People think Nixon was a good leader? Good grief.

People in power have to make difficult decisions, sometimes in situations where there is no positive outcome. There are no indecisive great leaders. Morality is rather in the eye of the beholder so I am not sure we can judge historical figures by today's morality.

Sometimes I think it's a requirement.

Parkus is on the right track here.

Machiavelli, I think, would say that if one were to be the sole leader of a state, then one would have to be immoral in certain ways to 'keep the waters at bay' and help the state flourish. While appearing to be virtuous, Machiavelli's Prince would have to be invirtuous to rule correctly.

Of course, he'd get his head chopped off the next time the Republic got its act together.

Nope, he's not, but you're on a closer tack. Within a certain limited range of objectives, one may be forgiven for acting immorally. But generally acting immorally for whatever one's personal goals are might bring you power but will blacken your name. As made clear elsewhere in his writting, one must know when to act morally and when not to.

(Also "virtuous" is a poor choice of wording, would you agree, given Machiavelli's use of virtù.)

I never cease to be amused by how you dismiss anything your boy Machiavelli says that does not support your preferred interpretation of him. Tell me, is it a trait of great leaders that they enjoy picking cherries?

I'm thinking Parkus is a follower of the Leo Strauss school...

As to your OP question: It depends on how you define "great."

If you define "great" as merely being effective during his/her career, then yes, an immoral person can be a great leader. So can an unethical person, or a even a weak person if he/she is blessed with a decent team, or anyone of any quality or no quality, so long as he/she is popular. Hell, so can a raving lunatic, sometimes.

If you define "great" as having a beneficial effect on society that outlasts their tenure, then, yes, sure an immoral person can be a great leader, BUT NOT if they are also unethical and incompetent.

Morals are irrelevant to leadership. Ethics and skill are what count.

One of the points Machiavelli had in mind was the Classical ideal of immortality - you will be remembered forever as a great person. Nixon's a great example of a leader who fell into the trap from Chapter VIII. He did great things, but he also did evil in self-service. For that, he's rightfully reviled.

I would not typically define morality, nor greatness, in such a way that great leaders are immoral.
However, a leader must work from different moral considerations than an ordinary person. And ordinary person concern is mostly local, concerning friends, neighbours, collegaes. A leader is burdened with the interest of a state (or company etc), which are more global. In the interest of the state you might be required to wage wars, fight against subversive elements and whatnot. Those are not responsibilities ordinary people face, and hence it's hardly fair to judge them in exactly the same way.
Now, of course, it's easy to mistake this as an excuse for 'aristocrats' to put themselves outside the concerns of common rabble that are beneath them and could never understand why whatever they do is god-ordained. But when I say they shouldn't be judged in the same way, I really mean that the basic moral instincts people have are not adapted to this non-local playing field. That doesn't mean one cannot (learn to) look at the bigger picture. If killing your political enemies will grant your state decades of peace, then that course of action has a lot going for it; even though one might be a bit squeamish on an individual level toward homicide. For example, I would say Augustus made the right decision ruthlessly cutting down his political enemies, whereas Caesar was clearly mistaken not to have taken this course (getting himself assassinated and putting the Roman state into years of further turmoil). A bit too consequentialist, perhaps; if it had worked out for Caesar he might easily have been considered the better man here, but on the other hand, perhaps one shouldn't play the odds too much with the states' interests.

Now the problem at hand is really this: people with a strong inclination toward ordinary/local morality, may have problems functioning in a leadership position, because they are squeamish to do what is necessary and right at the state level. They will first have to rationalize to themselves that what they have to do is right, which makes one run the risk at self-delusion (such as thinking oneself to have God on one's side).
Someone who is immoral to start with will not be held back by moral conflicts (local vs global) at that point; however, such a person is also more likely also exploit his power for interest that don't serve the good of the state (such as self-enrichment, powertrips, nepotism etc).

Ok, so, that really doesn't lead to a conclusion either way. An immoral person may be constrained to act morally because otherwise he might lose his position. And a moral person may succesfully learn to adapt to moral thinking on the state level, justifying action in terms of state (and the people's) interests, and his/her duty towards them (alternatively you could phrase it in terms of utility rather than obligation; or virtue, or probably any other ethical framework, e.g.: 1) a statesman may not harm the state, or through inaction allow the state come to harm; 2) a statesman must listen to the will of the people he is charged to serve unless this conflicts with rule 1; 3) a statesman must protect his career as long as this does not conflict with rules 1 and 2 ;) ).

Parkus is on the right track here.

Machiavelli, I think, would say that if one were to be the sole leader of a state, then one would have to be immoral in certain ways to 'keep the waters at bay' and help the state flourish. While appearing to be virtuous, Machiavelli's Prince would have to be invirtuous to rule correctly.

Of course, he'd get his head chopped off the next time the Republic got its act together.
Perhaps, but I don't think that's why PE said that.

And anyway, appearance of virtue is not relevant to the thread and is not, I think, the reason Daistallia posted the quote. After all, a poor leader can appear to be virtuous just as well as a great one can. Whether our fluffing-the-Catholics Prince is truly virtuous or only pretending to be doesn't matter if everything he does during his career is wiped away by those who chop his head off and take over. And if, ten years later, people are referring to him as "Oh, what was his name, that idiot who got shot or something, geez-god, what was his name? Oh, well, it doesn't matter," then no, he doesn't count as a "great leader," regardless of how virtuous he was or seemed or wasn't or didn't seem.

Nope, he's not, but you're on a closer tack. Within a certain limited range of objectives, one may be forgiven for acting immorally. But generally acting immorally for whatever one's personal goals are might bring you power but will blacken your name. As made clear elsewhere in his writting, one must know when to act morally and when not to.

(Also "virtuous" is a poor choice of wording, would you agree, given Machiavelli's use of virtù.)
I think it loses something in translation. Also, the common usages of words change over time. Perhaps "virtue" used in such a context had a slightly different meaning than we would assume nowadays, just like back in the day, words like "nice," "pains," and "liberal" had different usages and connotations than they do now, leading to many misunderstandings of classical writers.

And I agree that Machiavelli's point really was that a leader will not secure his position in his own lifetime, nor secure his historic legacy, by being nothing but a self-serving bastard. There is an element of enlightened self-interest even in altruism.

I'm thinking Parkus is a follower of the Leo Strauss school...
I think so, too.

One of the points Machiavelli had in mind was the Classical ideal of immortality - you will be remembered forever as a great person. Nixon's a great example of a leader who fell into the trap from Chapter VIII. He did great things, but he also did evil in self-service. For that, he's rightfully reviled.
And you will be remembered forever by whatever your most dramatic act was, and especially if it came close to the end of your career. Nixon's downfall was his own personal tragedy, in which a man who could have been great, who did things that might have qualified him for greatness, ended his career with not just betrayal of his position, but a particularly embarrassing and distasteful episode of betrayal. Instead of being remembered as a leader of great foreign policy talent and vision, he will instead be remembered forever as a paranoid, lying, cheating, backstabbing whiner. And deservedly so, because that is just what he did and what he revealed himself to be at the end. If it hadn't happened at the end, if that famous handshake had been the last thing he did instead, things might have been different. But it wasn't.

Yes. All a leader has to do is lead; they don't have to make good decisions.

See the edit.

People live better under just good leaders. Great leaders see into the future and work for it, but that leads to overlooking those around them right now. Rule of a great leader is the time of reform, and it hurts the people.Does this mean that Stalin was a great leader?

Do not flame me for this, please, but in all honesty Hitler was a great leader, and a genious
To get more members to join, he'd hold speeches in basements and hand out free beer, people came for the free beer, and the tight fit gave people the illusion that the party was popular, so like sheep, they joined the party, and they liked what he said
When he took over, he transformed Germany, the poorest nation in Europe, into a superpower
Yeah, he was a good leader, but a horrible person who did horrendus things

"The ends justify the means" is a terrible mistranslation.


You mean misinterpretation? Machiavelli never said those words, they just sum-up his philosophy in a fine manner.

Read chapter 9 (book 1) of his Discourses.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149d/bk1ch9.html

"It is well then, when the deed accuses him, the result should excuse him (the ruler);"

-from the above chapter.

People think Nixon was a good leader? Good grief.

Unless you believe that only Democrats can run the country well, I do not see how you can believe Nixon was a bad leader.

No, they had a very clear goal. The goal was to "purify" Europe by murdering everyone who didn't fit that idea. This wasn't random killing, it was probably the most methodical and efficient mass murder in human history.

I define "great leader" as someone who makes the lives of his populace significantly better; killing a few million of the people entrusted to him hardly does that.

"Great" at murdering maybe, but not great at leading.

I never cease to be amused by how you dismiss anything your boy Machiavelli says that does not support your preferred interpretation of him. Tell me, is it a trait of great leaders that they enjoy picking cherries?

Machiavelli did not consider himself a "philosopher", but rather a scientist; one does not have a "preferred interpretation" for scientists. Machivelli says what he means in his Discourses (he has to tread more carefully in The Prince). He does not concern himself with happiness, the afterlife, nihilism, metaphors, or anything like that. He sees people simply as the part of state, and he talks about how to make such a state great. His basic idea is simple: the ruler does whatever he must to make his country great; he owes his loyalty to the people, not his own morality, and should feel free to kill or lie to anyone who jeopardizes the state.

No. Where the hell did you get that?

You implied that it was the only possible source, considering there were no "Detailed records and forensic evidence from AD 14".

Machiavelli did not consider himself a "philosopher", but rather a scientist; one does not have a "preferred interpretation" for scientists. Machivelli says what he means in his Discourses (he has to tread more carefully in The Prince). He does not concern himself with happiness, the afterlife, nihilism, metaphors, or anything like that. He sees people simply as the part of state, and he talks about how to make such a state great. His basic idea is simple: the ruler does whatever he must to make his country great; he owes his loyalty to the people, not his own morality, and should feel free to kill or lie to anyone who jeopardizes the state.
And your point is...?

Unless you believe that only Democrats can run the country well, I do not see how you can believe Nixon was a bad leader.Economic expansion and the feeling of optimism died during his time, replaced by a cynicism and pervasive gloom that has never entirely lifted since. He did systemic damage to our institutions and our whole psychological outlook toward government. I'm old enough to remember when politicians were called "public servants" without a trace of irony, and it was considered an honorable thing to want to become.

Economic expansion and the feeling of optimism died during his time, replaced by a cynicism and pervasive gloom that has never entirely lifted since.

That had more to do with the Vietnam War than Nixon.

He did systemic damage to our institutions and our whole psychological outlook toward government. I'm old enough to remember when politicians were called "public servants" without a trace of irony, and it was considered an honorable thing to want to become.

Yet before Nixon, many presidents did more evil things. Andrew Jackson surpassed his authority by ordering the "Trail of Tears"; FDR was responsible for Japanese American Internment; Truman ordered 200,000 non-combatants incinerated.

Compare this with Nixon, who (despite his bellicose speeches to the American public) did more the mend U.S. relations with the Soviets than any other president of the Cold War. When Russia was experiencing famine, he allowed wheat to be shipped to it (though Jimmy Carter latter stopped this, and allowed "Commies" to starve).

It is true that Nixon was a corrupt liar; but his policies were good. It was just a time to hate America, and Nixon was not very adept at hiding his shady dealings.

I define "great leader" as someone who makes the lives of his populace significantly better; killing a few million of the people entrusted to him hardly does that.

"Great" at murdering maybe, but not great at leading.

I don't know, those who weren't killed were certainly better off, at least until Hitler really started to lose it in the later part of the war. Germany emerged from years of chaos and economic poverty to become a first-rate world power capable of waging total war against incredible odds and a leader in all kinds of civilian and military technology. As disturbing as it might seem, there are still plenty of people who are willing to tolerate the kind of depravity and brutality that characterized the Nazi regime as an acceptable consequence of their "greatness".

I don't know, those who weren't killed were certainly better off,

But what about the 14 million who were? No, that is crappy leadership. Would you call someone a good doctor if he amputated your leg (which never required it), then pointed how good he made the rest of your body?

at least until Hitler really started to lose it in the later part of the war. Germany emerged from years of chaos and economic poverty to become a first-rate world power capable of waging total war against incredible odds and a leader in all kinds of civilian and military technology.

But the country was unpleasent to live in, and this counts when determining leadership quality.

And your point is...?

I am hardly "picking cherries".

But the country was unpleasent to live in, and this counts when determining leadership quality.

Perhaps by your standards, you might have not liked living in Hitler's Germany pre-1939. Many German's might have disagreed with you.

Perhaps by your standards, you might have not liked living in Hitler's Germany pre-1939. Many German's might have disagreed with you.

Since the ones that would say otherwise would be executed.

But what about the 14 million who were? No, that is crappy leadership. Would you call someone a good doctor if he amputated your leg (which never required it), then pointed how good he made the rest of your body?

Well, they naturally couldn't care less. Those people were life unworthy of life, so their well-being was inconsequential to the Nazi regime and to many of the people that lived under it. Everyone else felt the benefits of a prosperous and stable period and were more than willing to turn a blind eye to atrocities in order to enjoy Nazi prosperity.

But the country was unpleasent to live in, and this counts when determining leadership quality.

I think, honestly, that it was more unpleasant for outside observers and those who had the misfortune of being occupied by Germany than those that lived there as citizens. Many, likely even a significant majority of Germans strongly supported the Nazi regime and its policies and a significant number wholly supported the war until things really started to take a turn for the worse.

The sheer extent of de-Nazification after the war strongly suggests there was a considerable pro-Nazi sentiment quite far in to the end of the war.

Also "virtuous" is a poor choice of wording, would you agree, given Machiavelli's use of virtù.
Yes, schoolboy error on my part.

Well, they naturally couldn't care less. Those people were life unworthy of life, so their well-being was inconsequential to the Nazi regime and to many of the people that lived under it. Everyone else felt the benefits of a prosperous and stable period and were more than willing to turn a blind eye to atrocities in order to enjoy Nazi prosperity.



I think, honestly, that it was more unpleasant for outside observers and those who had the misfortune of being occupied by Germany than those that lived there as citizens. Many, likely even a significant majority of Germans strongly supported the Nazi regime and its policies and a significant number wholly supported the war until things really started to take a turn for the worse.

The sheer extent of de-Nazification after the war strongly suggests there was a considerable pro-Nazi sentiment quite far in to the end of the war.

Yes, Nazi leaders were "great" by their own standards. But what leader is not great by his own standards?

Yes, Nazi leaders were "great" by their own standards. But what leader is not great by his own standards?

They were great by their people's standards as well. Objectively, I'd say they were terrible leaders (any idiot that kills a big chunk of their best and brightest citizens is pretty bad in my book), but from the standards of a German in the 1940's, they were pretty good.

However, it's that very disconnect that makes assessing historical legacies pretty difficult. Ghengis Khan was a monster, but his empire was almost unparalleled in terms of its safety, expanse, and economic prosperity.

They were great by their people's standards as well.

What about the 14 million killed, or those who suffered under the "guns not butter" policy?

Objectively, I'd say they were terrible leaders (any idiot that kills a big chunk of their best and brightest citizens is pretty bad in my book), but from the standards of a German in the 1940's, they were pretty good.

From the standards of a German who supported the Nazis, but not from the standards of a Jew, homosexual, Negro, Gypsy, or any German who did not support the Nazis.

However, it's that very disconnect that makes assessing historical legacies pretty difficult. Ghengis Khan was a monster, but his empire was almost unparalleled in terms of its safety, expanse, and economic prosperity.

The world would be a safer place if I killed everybody alive. You might call Genghis Khan a bringer of safety, but I doubt those who were butchered or raped by him and his men would agree with yo

You implied that it was the only possible source, considering there were no "Detailed records and forensic evidence from AD 14".

Perhaps you recognize the idiocy of demanding well-documented sources of political treachery in imperial Rome. Either way, I merely presented a source after you demanded one from a previous poster. You poisoned the well, but I'm not particularly inclined to defend the source one way or another. I merely made the post for your education.

Yes, Nazi leaders were "great" by their own standards. But what leader is not great by his own standards?

I find myself an excellent leader of my various gingerbread men subjects. They agree or are eaten. :p

They were great by their people's standards as well.
Eh, not really. Even in 1938, there were Gestapo reports of general complaining amongst the general public about wage cuts. Germany was in a war economy basically from 1937 onwards, and it wasn't all that fun for the general public other than in the short time-frame from the capture of Paris until August 1941.
from the standards of a German in the 1940's, they were pretty good.
Seeing as a lot of the men were conscripted, most the women were in factories 14 hours a day, the vast majority of children were Hitler Youth members and there was basically no way for the general public to voice their discontent, it's rather hard to get an accurate picture.

We have somewhat intact Gestapo reports from three cities and a few scraps of literature from SoPaDe, and that's about it. All of these are actually pretty pish in that the Gestapo were obviously going to play up or down reports to get more funding via 'oh noes communists' or 'aren't we spiff' respectively, and SoPaDe were largely cowardly champagne socialists, so their opinion isn't worth all that much either.
However, it's that very disconnect that makes assessing historical legacies pretty difficult.
Not really. If you've got sources from the 'ordinary people', you can assess its contemporary popularity with a bunch of those too. Problem is that ordinary people rarely chronicle their lives even nowadays, let alone in the days when being literate was extremely rare in anyone but the nobility and the church.
Ghengis Khan was a monster, but his empire was almost unparalleled in terms of its safety, expanse, and economic prosperity.
Depends who you were.

I am hardly "picking cherries".
Oh, yes you are. And you did it with that little mini-dissertation, too, in which you touched upon everything there is to know about Machiavelli EXCEPT anything that is relevant to the current discussion and the post you were responding to. Picking lots of cherries is still cherry picking.

All you did was demonstrate that you read something about him at least once -- apparently just enough to know which bits you want to acknowledge and which you don't.

Oh, yes you are. And you did it with that little mini-dissertation, too, in which you touched upon everything there is to know about Machiavelli EXCEPT anything that is relevant to the current discussion and the post you were responding to. Picking lots of cherries is still cherry picking.

All you did was demonstrate that you read something about him at least once -- apparently just enough to know which bits you want to acknowledge and which you don't.

:( My dear, please do me the service of pointing out which cherries I failed to acknowledge.

:( My dear, please do me the service of pointing out which cherries I failed to acknowledge.
You need my permission to address me as "my dear." You do not have it. Find some less personal way to talk down to me.

The cherries you routinely fail to acknowledge are all those instances in which Machiavelli says things that indicate that ethical and moral behavior are important for a ruler, that a ruler must adhere to the morals of his society in order to maintain legitimacy with the public and, MORE IMPORTANT, that he must adhere to ethics in his political dealings in order to (A) maintain goodwill with his allies and (B) avoid giving his enemies anything to use legitimately against him. You routinely ignore or deny all the instances in which Machiavelli advises rulers to opt for honesty, especially when talking to the public, so as to (A) prevent enemies from spreading false rumors and (B) assure the public that they can trust him. You routinely ignore or deny all the instances in which Machiavelli warns that a ruler who takes only the hard line of "might makes right" and "victory at all costs" always weakens his standing with his own people, who ultimately have the power to cause him to be deposed if he gives them enough reason to switch their allegiance to someone else. Finally, you routinely -- and rather ignorantly, in my personal opinion -- dismiss all such remarks by Machiavelli as "fluff thrown to the Catholics" and similar brush-offs, as if you get to decide what Machiavelli really meant to say, regardless of what he actually wrote. THAT is text-book cherry-picking.

You make a big noise about how much of Machiavelli you've read. This is not the first time I've thought you may have been wasting your time staring at those books.

You need my permission to address me as "my dear."

Why?

You do not have it. Find some less personal way to talk down to me.

:tongue: I somehow manage to repeatedly offend you. I am not trying to "talk down" to you; I have modicum of respect for you, considering you are probably much older than I am. Just because I use a pedantic tone of voice, does not mean I am egomaniac, or that I believe I am always right.

The cherries you routinely fail to acknowledge are all those instances in which Machiavelli says things that indicate that ethical and moral behavior are important for a ruler, that a ruler must adhere to the morals of his society in order to maintain legitimacy with the public and, MORE IMPORTANT, that he must adhere to ethics in his political dealings in order to (A) maintain goodwill with his allies and (B) avoid giving his enemies anything to use legitimately against him. You routinely ignore or deny all the instances in which Machiavelli advises rulers to opt for honesty, especially when talking to the public, so as to (A) prevent enemies from spreading false rumors and (B) assure the public that they can trust him.

Machiavelli was a defender of the public and democracy, so he probably would not like a ruler lying to the people (then again, he loved the Roman religion). As for any other "conventional" ethics, I have only seen Machiavelli say that it is important to appear to have these, but not important to actually possess them. Machiavelli was by now means conventionally moral: he gushed about how well Pope Alexander VI could lie, and about how well Cesare Borgia could murder. He also enjoyed writing letters to his friends about his experiences with prostitutes, yet he says nothing of his wife.

You routinely ignore or deny all the instances in which Machiavelli warns that a ruler who takes only the hard line of "might makes right" and "victory at all costs" always weakens his standing with his own people, who ultimately have the power to cause him to be deposed if he gives them enough reason to switch their allegiance to someone else.

Machiavelli never said that "might makes right", nor did I ever imply that he did. The idea of "the ends justify the means" is that any method may be used, if the good is the result outweighs the evil in the method.

Finally, you routinely -- and rather ignorantly, in my personal opinion -- dismiss all such remarks by Machiavelli as "fluff thrown to the Catholics" and similar brush-offs, as if you get to decide what Machiavelli really meant to say, regardless of what he actually wrote. THAT is text-book cherry-picking.

Really, why else would Machiavelli remark upon how one should be religious? He stated in a letter that he did not go to church, he called Christianity the bane of Italy, he says rulers need not be religious--must I go on?

You make a big noise about how much of Machiavelli you've read. This is not the first time I've thought you may have been wasting your time staring at those books.

I am hurt.

Why?
Because I'm the boss of me and I said so.

:tongue: I somehow manage to repeatedly offend you.
Yes, it's amazing how good you are at it.

I am not trying to "talk down" to you; I have modicum of respect for you, considering you are probably much older than I am.
And now you're doing it again. It's uncanny.

Just because I use a pedantic tone of voice, does not mean I am egomaniac, or that I believe I am always right.
I do not complain that you are an egomaniac or think you are always right. What I'm complaining about is the specific things I think you're always wrong about.

Machiavelli was a defender of the public and democracy, so he probably would not like a ruler lying to the people (then again, he loved the Roman religion). As for any other "conventional" ethics, I have only seen Machiavelli say that it is important to appear to have these, but not important to actually possess them.
And...? This is different from what I wrote, how, exactly? Or is this your backhanded way of telling me that I'm right?

Machiavelli was by now means conventionally moral: he gushed about how well Pope Alexander VI could lie, and about how well Cesare Borgia could murder. He also enjoyed writing letters to his friends about his experiences with prostitutes, yet he says nothing of his wife.
Conventionally moral according to whose morality? His? Or yours?

Because commenting about famous pols and players' abilities to lie, steal, cheat, and murder their rivals is fully in keeping with (A) his own political views and (B) the norms of his society.

As for the wife/prostitute thing:

A) Honorable men of his day did not talk about their wives behind their backs.

B) Using the services of prostitutes was common practice and not at all considered shady or bad, except by certain church leaders (hopefully not the same ones who were using all those prostitutes).

So there is nothing out of keeping with the conventional morals of Machiavelli's day in that, either.

But that's okay, you go on judging him by your criteria, rather than his, and either being unaware that you are doing it, or pretending that you're not doing it. It suits your general habit of taking him out of context.

Machiavelli never said that "might makes right", nor did I ever imply that he did. The idea of "the ends justify the means" is that any method may be used, if the good outweighs the evil in the method.
I was not attributing those words to him. They were in quotes to set them off as popularly believed fallacies.

Really, why else would Machiavelli remark upon how one should be religious? He stated in a letter that he did not go to church, he called Christianity the bane of Italy, he says rulers need not be religious--must I go on?
Only go on if you can explain what the hell you are talking about.

I quoted your words -- "Fluff thrown to the Catholics." That is what YOU said in dismissing Machiavelli's words about a leader needing to be mindful of moral behavior, which were quoted by another poster. Who said anything at all about Machiavelli talking about religion? Nobody but you, just now and with those earlier words, and obviously you're not saying he advocated religiosity. So what are you saying? And in reference to what?

I am hurt.
Liar.

Because I'm the boss of me and I said so.

But you are not the boss of me.

Yes, it's amazing how good you are at it.

Ah, you do not like me; that is alright, I do not like me either...but I do not complain about it as much as you do.

And now you're doing it again. It's uncanny.

If you find facts irritating it is not my fault.

I do not complain that you are an egomaniac or think you are always right. What I'm complaining about is the specific things I think you're always wrong about.

Is there anything you think I am right about?


And...? This is different from what I wrote, how, exactly? Or is this your backhanded way of telling me that I'm right?


"The cherries you routinely fail to acknowledge are all those instances in which Machiavelli says things that indicate that ethical and moral behavior are important for a ruler, that a ruler must adhere to the morals of his society in order to maintain legitimacy with the public and, MORE IMPORTANT, that he must adhere to ethics in his political dealings"

I find the bold incorrect; thus, you are not right.

Conventionally moral according to whose morality? His? Or yours?

Society's.

Because commenting about famous pols and players' abilities to lie, steal, cheat, and murder their rivals is fully in keeping with (A) his own political views and (B) the norms of his society.

Commenting and praising, then saying it is evidently better to lie and murder than to not.

As for the wife/prostitute thing:

A) Honorable men of his day did not talk about their wives behind their backs.

I am under the impression you do not believe honor existed, considering lies, murder, and adultery were all acceptable practices.

B) Using the services of prostitutes was common practice and not at all considered shady or bad, except by certain church leaders (hopefully not the same ones who were using all those prostitutes).

When one was married it generally was not congruent with preferable morals.

So there is nothing out of keeping with the conventional morals of Machiavelli's day in that, either.

So, were there any morals in "Machiavelli's day"?

But that's okay, you go on judging him by your criteria, rather than his,

And you judge me by your criteria, rather than by mine.

and either being unaware that you are doing it, or pretending that you're not doing it. It suits your general habit of taking him out of context.

*submits to scolding*:$

I was not attributing those words to him. They were in quotes to set them off as popularly believed fallacies.

Once again, read Book I, Chapter IX of the Discourses (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149d/bk1ch9.html); there is no fallacy.


Only go on if you can explain what the hell you are talking about.

I quoted your words -- "Fluff thrown to the Catholics." That is what YOU said in dismissing Machiavelli's words about a leader needing to be mindful of moral behavior, which were quoted by another poster. Who said anything at all about Machiavelli talking about religion? Nobody but you, just now and with those earlier words, and obviously you're not saying he advocated religiosity. So what are you saying? And in reference to what?

"It cannot be called virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, betray one’s friends, be without faith, without pity, and without religion; by these methods one may indeed gain power, but not glory."

Liar.

:eek2:

Machiavelli would agree so and I too would agree with he. Remember, the Prince must sacrifice his soul to help the people by doing immoral things for the greater good.

But you are not the boss of me.
You're right, and if you are absolutely determined to be rude to me, I have no recourse but to ignore you.

Ah, you do not like me; that is alright, I do not like me either...but I do not complain about it as much as you do.



If you find facts irritating it is not my fault.
I find your habit of cherrypicking facts irritating.

Is there anything you think I am right about?
I'm sure there must be, since I've only ever spoken to you about Machiavelli and he is not the only topic in the world.

"The cherries you routinely fail to acknowledge are all those instances in which Machiavelli says things that indicate that ethical and moral behavior are important for a ruler, that a ruler must adhere to the morals of his society in order to maintain legitimacy with the public and, MORE IMPORTANT, that he must adhere to ethics in his political dealings"

I find the bold incorrect; thus, you are not right.
Of course, because it is absolutely impossible for you to be incorrect, or in other words, not right.

Society's.
WHICH society?

Commenting and praising, then saying it is evidently better to lie and murder than to not.
Another misinterpretation based on your selective reading, one which you have expressed more than once.

I am under the impression you do not believe honor existed, considering lies, murder, and adultery were all acceptable practices.
And not content to misrepresent Machiavelli, you now misrepresent me. Your impression is wrong, and you are still judging Machiavelli by your own standards, not his. And since I already pointed out that you are doing that, I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt of thinking that you are not aware you are doing it. You must be doing it deliberately but not acknowledging it. That's not very honest, intellectually.

When one was married it generally was not congruent with preferable morals.
Wrong again. Try learning about the cultures that produced the people you claim to admire before making pronouncements about them.


So, were there any morals in "Machiavelli's day"?
Yes, and Machiavelli even mentions them in his books. I'm surprised you are not aware of them, seeing as you are such an expert.

And you judge me by your criteria, rather than by mine.
But I don't pretend otherwise. I tell you why I think what I do without pretending that I'm representing some universal norm that has existed for centuries. And I apply my criteria only to what you say in these threads, rather than pretending I know things about you I cannot possibly know, or that I understand you to mean the opposite of what you say.

*submits to scolding*:$



Once again, read Book I, Chapter IX of the Discourses (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149d/bk1ch9.html); there is no fallacy.




"It cannot be called virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, betray one’s friends, be without faith, without pity, and without religion; by these methods one may indeed gain power, but not glory."



:eek2:
Which you described as "Fluff thrown to the Catholics" and declared later he never advocated at all, all the apparent assumption that you know that when he wrote those words, he didn't mean them. What, did he tell you that via your ouija board?

Hitler was great because he conquered Western Europe, as was Churchill in holding off the Nazi invasion and keeping his nation together.

There are more than one category of great leader. You can have a great military leader, great spiritual leader, great cultural leader e.g. poet, writer, singer,etc and you can have great scientific leaders e.g Einstein, and finally you can have great political leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Winston Churchill.

There have been many immoral great leaders if you include Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and really the list goes on.

Unless you believe that only Democrats can run the country well, I do not see how you can believe Nixon was a bad leader.

I wasn't thinking Democrats v Republicans more corrupt v non-corrupt, crook v non-crook etc.

There were some good Republican leaders - Lincoln was a great leader and Dwight Eisenhower was pretty good for a president who had to negotiate post war reconstruction of almost the whole world, a rampant witch-hunting Joe Mc Carthy and all the baggage of the 50s.
But modern Republicans??? Ron Reagan, the two Georges? (I had some sneaking sympathies for Ford though because he always seemed to be falling over (I wonder if he had an inner-ear infection?
My favourites? Jimmy Carter (you had to love him even if he got run over by Iran), JFK (Can't help it! Yeah! I know about the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam!) but most of all FDR - my all time hero! I don't care what he did wrong. It's what he did right that I'll always respect.

There were some good Republican leaders - Lincoln was a great leader and Dwight Eisenhower was pretty good for a president who had to negotiate post war reconstruction of almost the whole world, a rampant witch-hunting Joe Mc Carthy and all the baggage of the 50s.
But modern Republicans??? Ron Reagan, the two Georges? (I had some sneaking sympathies for Ford though because he always seemed to be falling over (I wonder if he had an inner-ear infection?
My favourites? Jimmy Carter (you had to love him even if he got run over by Iran), JFK (Can't help it! Yeah! I know about the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam!) but most of all FDR - my all time hero! I don't care what he did wrong. It's what he did right that I'll always respect.
The bolded part. In fact, I'll pull it out to emphasize it:

I don't care what he did wrong. It's what he did right that I'll always respect.

^^THIS is what determines whether a leader is called "great" or not.

"Great leader" is a label applied by others, and the deciding factor in how it gets applied is what those others think of the leader in question. Any given leader will have that label applied or taken away, entirely dependent on who is talking about him. Collectivity looks at FDR's career and sees things he approves of strongly enough that he is willing to discount whatever he might not approve of.* Other people look at the same career and see things they disapprove of so strongly that nothing FDR did right can make up for it.

Even Parkus Empire does this when he discounts arguments that would list Hitler as a "great leader" because of his leadership skills, on the grounds that his crimes while a leader negate the value of any skills or talent for leadership he may have had.**

So I put it to the thread that there is no general consensus as to what constitutes a "great leader" because the requirements for "greatness" vary so much from person to person.

I also put it to the thread that there is no general consensus as to what constitutes "moral/immoral" in terms of what kinds of specific actions fall under those headings. We may all agree that "moral" means adherence to a moral code and "immoral" means violation of a moral code, but that hardly helps in determining if any given leader is moral or immoral within his context, because what are the ingredients of a moral code?

For these reasons, it is my opinion that the OP question is vague and overbroad. One foundational point seems to have been established and agreed upon early -- that, technically, an immoral person can be a great leader -- but when we try to get into detailed explanations of how that works, the discussion loses direction.


* I agree with Collectivity about FDR, more or less. I don't count FDR as a hero of mine, but I do think he was a very good president.

** I also agree with Parkus Empire about Hitler. I think the fact that he led Germany to a second devastating military defeat in less than a generation, one which cost that nation territory and part of its sovereignty for a time and left a legacy of atrocities that blackened the reputation of all Germans, should discount him from the list of "great leaders." Failure =/= greatness, imo.

Hitler was great because he conquered Western Europe, as was Churchill in holding off the Nazi invasion and keeping his nation together.
Meh for them both. Hitler benefitted the largest corporations in Germany at the time. IG Farben and Thyssen-Krupp are still major world players, and a lot of that wealth was off the back of war contracts and indeed slave labour in the later years. But the general public was shafted, and it ran his country into the ground.

Churchill was a great war leader in terms of keeping morale up, but he was also a total wanker who tried to equate the Labour party with the Nazis.
There are more than one category of great leader. You can have a great military leader, great spiritual leader, great cultural leader e.g. poet, writer, singer,etc and you can have great scientific leaders e.g Einstein, and finally you can have great political leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Winston Churchill.
Quite.
There have been many immoral great leaders if you include Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and really the list goes on.
What the fuck was good about Pol Pot? Seriously. He did nothing good for Cambodia, unless you think that killing about 30% of your own population and running up massive debts is a good thing.

Stalin, Hitler and Mao - eh, were they really great leaders?

Pol Pot as a great leader? That's new, even the most hardcore communists I know, and I know many, refuse to recognize him as anything but a crackpot.

That had more to do with the Vietnam War than Nixon.
The Vietnam War, and everything else that Nixon did, contributed to a disintegration of respect not just for his government, but for the very concept of "government"; this massive shift in attitudes was his singular contribution to society.
Yet before Nixon, many presidents did more evil things.
Who was denying that? Yet, America got over all those things you cited, and yet, for some reason has never ever managed to get past the Nixon cynicism, which remains the most striking feature of the American political landscape almost four decades later.

The Vietnam War, and everything else that Nixon did, contributed to a disintegration of respect not just for his government, but for the very concept of "government"; this massive shift in attitudes was his singular contribution to society.

But the Vietnam War started long before Nixon's terms, was escalated by Kennedy, and declared by Johnson, so I would hardly call Nixon responsible; it just became particularly bad during his term.

As for everything else: I am not entirely certain what you mean; are you saying politicians were honest before Nixon, or just that they did a better job at hiding corruption from the people?

Who was denying that? Yet, America got over all those things you cited, and yet, for some reason has never ever managed to get past the Nixon cynicism, which remains the most striking feature of the American political landscape almost four decades later.

Yes, because Nixon's evils were committed during a time when people were becoming disillusioned with America. The country had supposedly allied itself with communists to destroy the "evil fascists", and now for some reason the fascists were the good guys and the "commies" were the bad guys. The movements of the 60's brought about the concept that patriotism was idiotic, and that the U.S. harmed people like every other imperialistic nation. The populace was shocked seeing the true face of Richard Nixon (to quote Nixon from the film of the same name: *staring at a picture of JFK sadly* "When they look at you, they see what they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they are."), and he became the embodiment of evil America.

WHICH society?

Western-Judeo-Christian society evolved from Roman ideals.

Which you described as "Fluff thrown to the Catholics" and declared later he never advocated at all, all the apparent assumption that you know that when he wrote those words, he didn't mean them. What, did he tell you that via your ouija board?

I said he probably did not mean them because he directly contradicts them many times, especially in letters and books he only showed to his friends.

Now, will someone please relate a witticism concerning sexual intercourse, so Muravyets will have something better to do than to listen to me?

Western-Judeo-Christian society evolved from Roman ideals.



I said he probably did not mean them because he directly contradicts them many times, especially in letters and books he only showed to his friends.

Now, will someone please relate a witticism concerning sexual intercourse, so Muravyets will have something better to do than to listen to me?
You know, that last remark was seriously personally insulting.

So are we discounting the possibility that The Prince was satire?

So are we discounting the possibility that The Prince was satire?
No, because if it's historical, it must be true.

You know, that last remark was seriously personally insulting.

My apologizes, this was not my intent.

And please, do not use the word "serious(ly)" concerning me, because I am anything but serious.

So are we discounting the possibility that The Prince was satire?

We do not have to necessarily, as Machiavelli did write satire.

But Muravyets and I are really speaking more of his Discourses; strange as it may seem, the only thing Muravyets and I have in common is something we keep in our "pants".

strange as it may seem, the only thing Muravyets and I have in common is something we keep in our "pants".Ferrets?

Ferrets?

No, the Discourses, which, on another thread, Muravyets claimed resided in the trousers of those who have read it.

So are we discounting the possibility that The Prince was satire?
One of us is.

No, the Discourses, which, on another thread, Muravyets claimed resided in the trousers of those who have read it.
That's not what I said actually. What I said was that you seemed to carry the entire Machiavelli library around with you in your pants -- as in ready to whip out at a moment's notice, to impress the people around you. But that was only relevant to that conversation.

...[blah blah blah] Yes, because... [blah blah blah]
I'm not really interested in arguing WHY Nixon's presidency turned out so badly, or whether it was his "fault" in some profound sense, or whatever; I just found your initial assertion that Nixon was a "good" leader very curious. Surely a prerequisite for calling a leader "good" ought to be that he led to a good result?

I'm not really interested in arguing WHY Nixon's presidency turned out so badly, or whether it was his "fault" in some profound sense, or whatever; I just found your initial assertion that Nixon was a "good" leader very curious. Surely a prerequisite for calling a leader "good" ought to be that he led to a good result?

He made Communists (Russian and Chinese) less of America's enemies; is that not "good"? As for the populace seeing politicians for what they really are: I do not see that as bad.

Nixon was an ass who made intelligent decisions, except where being an ass was concerned.

That's not what I said actually. What I said was that you seemed to carry the entire Machiavelli library around with you in your pants -- as in ready to whip out at a moment's notice, to impress the people around you. But that was only relevant to that conversation.

Ah, so now I see! Machiavelli is not worthy of your trousers, is that it?

Ah, so now I see! Machiavelli is not worthy of your trousers, is that it?
Well, let me put it this way... Based solely on the two threads in which I've discussed his work with you, he'd be more worthy than you. But that's neither here nor there, as neither of you is seeking such a position, nor is it on offer. Now, do you mind if I pay a little more attention to your topic and a little less attention to you? Thanks.

They're good at attaining power, but not good at holding onto it. Evil in the end compromises itself.

They're good at attaining power, but not good at holding onto it. Evil in the end compromises itself.

Why?

Wouldn't a person willing to countenance any means for holding onto power be likely to hold onto it better than one who simply refuses to do certain things, however useful they might be for that end?

Why?

Wouldn't a person willing to countenance any means for holding onto power be likely to hold onto it better than one who simply refuses to do certain things, however useful they might be for that end?

I guess it depends on what you mean by evil.

To elaborate, what I mean is that theoretically, you could have a person who is thoroughly corrupt and evil, but would never act in any manner inconsistent with what is just. I suppose you could consider this person's guiding principle to be the egoistic hook. This person I suppose could hold power, but it's a kind of evil I've never really met and I don't think exists.

The evil people that I've met (and mind you, I'd say that there were only 3 or 4 people in my life I'd say were truly evil, and truly willing to countenance any lengths to achieve their aims) are all marked by a singular problem: because they are driven solely by self-consideration, they have difficulty functioning over the long term in any civilized context because as soon as their wants diverge from the wants or needs of other people, they violate the other person to achieve their own ends. In point of fact, it's my experience that evil people need to be under the law more than good men, not less, because the law is the only boundary an evil man will accept as legitimate because it wields superior force; the law ironically enough is what allows evil men to survive because it makes them marginally palatable to the rest of society. Put them in a position where they don't immediately have to listen to the law, and they inevitably use their power for self-gratification rather than serving the interests of the people, which brings about the wrath of the people.

I should note that I don't find egoism coequivalent with evil, just that evil men are always egoists to the core and carry their egoism to the furthest possible interpretation. Given such a kind of evil, then no, they don't make good leaders. As soon as they become a leader, they are exposed as malevolent to the rest of society, and Machiavelli would be the first to tell you a leader cannot allow himself to be perceived as vicious. Instead, they have to be followers in order to brake their egoism with a healthy respect for getting thrown in jail or shot by police.

One of us is.

Make that two. Machiavelli was trying to curry favour with De Medici who wasn't particularly impressed.
Whether one thinks it ironic, satirical or not, it ranks as one of the great manuals on "leadership".
I particularly like "It is better to be feared than to be loved". I guess a lot of this thread has explored that theme.

Well, let me put it this way... Based solely on the two threads in which I've discussed his work with you, he'd be more worthy than you.

C'est la vie; the trousers would probably experience a discrepancy as far as size is concerned anyway.

But that's neither here nor there, as neither of you is seeking such a position, nor is it on offer. Now, do you mind if I pay a little more attention to your topic and a little less attention to you? Thanks.

By all means. :hail:

They're good at attaining power, but not good at holding onto it. Evil in the end compromises itself.

Source?

Source?

I don't know if "personal experience" is a source you recognize, so I'll say "Tolkein?".

I don't know if "personal experience" is a source you recognize, so I'll say "Tolkein?".

A source claiming the contrary:

http://pages.nyu.edu/~rgr208/richelieu.jpg

A source claiming the contrary:

http://pages.nyu.edu/~rgr208/richelieu.jpg

I was being a bit facetious. My argument was rudimentary, but it aligns quite well with a lot of what you'd see in works like The Republic, Politics, The Leviathan, and the Persian Letters.

That being said, it doesn't really matter. Even Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Montesquieu can be wrong, as could Richelieu. Rather than appealing to authority, see if you can find a counterargument to test my claim.

I was being a bit facetious. My argument was rudimentary, but it aligns quite well with a lot of what you'd see in works like The Republic, Politics, The Leviathan, and the Persian Letters.

That being said, it doesn't really matter. Even Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Montesquieu can be wrong,

I do not understand why they would be right.

as could Richelieu.

His actions spoke louder than his words.

Rather than appealing to authority, see if you can find a counterargument to test my claim.

Evil has no moral impediments, and thus can always act in such a manner as benefits it the most.

I guess it depends on what you mean by evil...
This. If your definition of evil or immoral includes "lousy at leading," then no, an immoral person would not make a great leader. It depends on what one thinks is immoral.

They're good at attaining power, but not good at holding onto it. Evil in the end compromises itself.

Why?

Wouldn't a person willing to countenance any means for holding onto power be likely to hold onto it better than one who simply refuses to do certain things, however useful they might be for that end?
That isn't really Xenophobialand's point, I think. I think he was talking about the legacy of such leaders, not their ability to hold onto power during their own lives. In fact, excessive evilness/immorality undermines both.

The kind of "evil" Xeno is talking about is one that is fundamentally self-centered to the exclusion of all other concerns.

1) In terms of a leader's legacy, such self-centeredness leads to poor management of a nation. The leader, rather than managing the nations' resources for sustainability, instead pillages and exploits them for his own personal gratification/pleasure. Upon his death/removal from power, he leaves a nation with a damaged economy, damaged military, damaged legal and social structures, vulnerable to attacks by enemies and/or insurgencies from within, and possibly burdened with systems so dysfunctional that his replacement will quickly discard them. Such a leader will not be remembered as "great."

2) In terms of a leader's ability to hold onto power, I think the main weakness of this kind of evil is that the evil person, being entirely self-centered, always assumes that he/she is the most evil, most vicious, most bad-ass junkyard-dog around. And they are always wrong. There is always going to be someone -- some individual, or some group of people -- who are going to turn out to be meaner, tougher, more ruthless than the evil leader, especially if that leader pisses off that other person/group enough to do something about it.

Also, being so entirely self-centered, this kind of evil leader typically discounts all other people as insignificant, regardless of who they actually are, what resources they may have in hand, or what kind of access to the leader they may be able to get. And this, ultimately, is what makes them easy to get at. This is what makes them weak. And that weakness also undermines any claim to the label of "great."

So, to conclude, being the kind of evil bastard that, historically, inevitably ends with the failure of all one's enterprises and one's own violent death does not make for a "great leader."