Tielhard, I'm willing to agree to that compromise...combining the father/son tagteam that was Rama IV-V as one great leader, and perhaps the same could be said for my aforementioned Kangxi-Yongzheng father/son tagteam. Reform programs take a long time to develop and Mongkut deserves the credit for having been bold enough to initiate them...while Chulalongkorn can take credit for furthering them at a time when he could easily have regressed back into a more absolutist style of rule.

By the way, some of the criticisms in the 'case against Mongkut', as you have termed it, are unsatisfying to me. The first one regarding him becoming king in a time of necessary change doesn't really resonate with me. Change never 'has' to occur, China remained stagnant for a number of years after Western incursions across her eastern seaboard. Change only came when willing and interested leaders initiated it. Chiang Kai-Shek had his chances to make reform but he chose instead to focus his attentions on the 'communist menace' in Shanghai. The Meiji leaders could have taken a much more traditionalist, conservative approach and allowed Japan to remain a relative backwater, but their bold initiative allowed Japan to rapidly develop into a first-rate nation. I only didn't include any of the Meiji leaders because none stuck out to me specifically as worthy of special consideration, though Ito Hirobumi comes close. The second one regarding Thai 'expansion' to me is a red herring. Throughout Southeast Asian history there was always a continuous tug-and-pull of neighboring states, sometimes expanding and sometimes diminishing. Lan Na was essentially an independent border state with the Thai kingdom over which the Chakri kings held suzerainship. The same could be said about the kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. It just so happens that, as I mentioned above, the Thai kingdom was on the decline after a high point during the reign of Rama I. Military conquest was certainly not the concern of Mongkut, but rather the continued existence of his court as an independent entity. If he failed to hold suzerainty over the Lan Na area of northern Thailand, and failed to reacquire areas of Cambodia such as Siem Reap, this was due to the overwhelming power of the neighboring colonial powers. Expansion of territory doesn't fit into my requirements for a great leader, so I reject this argument against Mongkut. The third point about securing succession, I'm willing to concede, but I'm not sure about its relevance to Mongkut's record. The last two points I addressed above.

To Lee Kwan Yew...apparently we differ in our views on form of government. All government repress their people somehow or another, that's the nature of the beast. Given Lee's virtual all-encompassing power, his moderation vis-a-vis repression is remarkably admirable. In addition, his guidance toward a proto-democracy in that former British colony has progressed rather nicely, though not on the scale of say...Taiwan. As for personal liberties, they are there for the Singaporean people, freedom of press, freedom to assemble, etc. There are simply limitations and regulations that prohibit these 'rights' from endangering public safety. Call it 'Asian-style' democracy if you will. Perhaps we in the West should accept that there are alternative systems to the British Westminster style and the American Federalist system of government? Returning to Lee for a moment I would also like to give a much-deserved endorsement to him as an outspoken and influential leader not just for Singapore, but for all of Asia. His philosophical ideas about running government, here drawn from Confucianism, there drawn from Sun Yat-Sen, are quite organized and have been heavily borrowed from by other developing countries in the region. His ideas have had influence in fellow Chinese speaking countries Taiwan and China, where the societies and economies have become much more open over the past 20 years. Both Deng Xiao-Ping and Chiang Ching-Kuo have given much credit to Lee's ideas in regards to their own programs. The development of an effective and meaningful democracy takes time and patience, and no small amount of suffering in many instances, but as Lee has shown, it can be done with a stable leadership that avoids the pitfalls of large-scale corruption.

Oh yes, one final thing...I'm not really sure why people call Singapore sterile. I find the town quite charming and an excellent vacation place. I agree that cities such as Paris and Barcelona are grand, and certainly they should be with such long histories. Singapore, though, has a cultural milieu that is somewhat unique in the world. Part Chinese, part Malay, part Indian with a European flavor...maybe only Kuala Lumpur can compare. If you love a cultural mix, then Singapore surely can't be seen as a 'sterile' place. Anyhow, to each his own...I'll continue to enjoy Singapore whenever I am able.

Why should Clinton be excluded? This thread doesn't state that the greatest leaders have to be dead. It just asks what we think are the greatest leaders of all time. Clinton was a leader, was he not? He served the US for two terms. He can't run for president again. Clinton reformed welfare, helped the environment, and did other things to help America.

Sorry, but I forget who said that I was too young to remember the Bay of Pigs. But yes, you are correct. I was born in 1971, but I read a lot and was taught about Kennedy. And according to my high school history teacher, he didn't want Vietnam. He did everything in his power not to have that unneccessary war. However, Johnson wanted Vietnam, and don't you find it amazing that almost as soon as Johnson killed to...er....became president that we were in full swing with the Vietnam War. Yes, when Kennedy was president, we had soldiers in Vietnam, but he was trying to get them out of there and bring them back home. Kennedy gave Civil Rights to African Americans, was foremost in getting America to space, he helped the environment, and did other great things.

Just because Kennedy didn't die hundreds of years ago doesn't make him not a great leader. And, just because Clinton is still alive doesn't make him not a great leader.

DakotaNorth

"Why should Clinton be excluded? This thread doesn't state that the greatest leaders have to be dead."

No it does not, but having said that Jaffas85 started the thread on 18/11/2001 and has not been seen to post since 25/01/2002. Other people who are posting to this thread regularly and I have made some attempt to determine the criteria on which a leader can be judged to be great (see above and please disagree if you feel it appropriate). Un-stated in these criteria but explicit in several rejections of possible candidates by myself when acting as Old Nick’s advocate is that the proposed Great Leader should be dead because until a person is dead you cannot judge their whole life.

However, I have been inconsistent in my application of this maxim in my recent discussion of Lee Kwan Yew with thejazzkickazz, so I should have accorded both you and Mr. Clinton the same courtesy, my apologies. Here is my response to the proposal that Bill Clinton is a great leader.

Mr. Clinton is not a Great Leader as he never did anything great.

thejazzkickazz,

I think we have come to a crucial disagreement over Singapore. To you it appear that the trappings of Liberty are important, to me it is Liberty itself which is important. Without true liberty the trappings which you so admire in Singapore are just so much dust in the winds. Here today gone tomorrow at the behest of a less benevolent despot.

Having said that and admitting that his influence unpleasant and unwholesome as I regard it stretches far beyond Singapore, I feel he has done little with Singapore which was not highly likely given its location and past. I remain convinced he is not a great leader.

"Oh yes, one final thing...I'm not really sure why people call Singapore sterile." Because much of it is impersonal concrete and built on a very large scale, there is no intimacy in much of the place. Notwithstanding my somewhat negative view of the Lion city; KL comparable, I fall about laughing. It floods every few years and they loose all the power, in twenty years it will be a truly great city, as I suspect will the cities of the Pearl river and elsewhere but not today. "Part Chinese, part Malay, part Indian with a European flavour" are you not talking about my home town London? However, enough of this inappropriate talk of cities I hear the stomp of the thread police’s boots in the distance.

To finish can I reiterate my request below:

"I cannot really comment on the Kangxi and Yongzheng as what I know about the former would fit on a postage stamp and of the latter I know nothing. Education please"

I thik you have missed the point, at least I hope that is what's happened.

No, I didn't miss the point at all.

Let's say it this way, in the interest of inclusion and what ,being the Angel's advocate? (Now that's a change for yours truly! ) But Tielhard, your client needs an opponent from time to time. I am not hijacking though, I couldn't if I tried...but wanted to say why two candidates mentioned were probably out of the running.

Jimmy Carter left his presidency, well, a relatively tired out person, yet he'd tried his utmost and I personally believe he gave it his all, to do something good and constructive. I just find him an exception to the rules of politics which is why, perhaps, as a president he wasn't a "good" leader in terms of effectiveness...yet, AFTER his presidency he showed greater leadership and in fact, after hearing him speak, you would have thought he was another man, truly, rejuvenated, after the weight of trying to lead a nation was lifted from him....and his merit to me, lies in what he did after his term.
However,as I feel that he was indeed too earnest to be able to lead a nation as a leader unfortunately must accept too many compromises to his integrity to survive...he is excluded from the running by your criteria. For me what stands out is his integrity. I spoke about him in another thread here a long time ago, as I wanted to know if there were ANY politicians or leaders that anyone admired as I found there was such

Clinton however, by these criteria, still has a chance in his lifetime, he's young yet by these standards so there is hope yet Dakota. Just in terms of this discussion, he didn't quite perform the feats of leadership required during his presidency to qualify here...
And I must say that there's certainly been a run for one's money in terms of criteria here! The bar is pretty high!
So he'd have to rise up and do something mighty fast in order to get in under the finishing line...right?
Whew!
Makes one think what a drop in the bucket we all are in terms of the vast scale of world history and events.

So though one or two leaders who are still alive have been discussed, it is because they did do things considered major deeds before reaching old age and the end of their life.

Nobody's tackled CDG yet?

DakotaNorth

Having determined that you do not feel that you have missed the point, I shall respond.

If this thread were about say "what is you favourite dish" I might respond "tripes and onions", you might follow that with the post "prunes and custard" and a third person may post "marmalade sausage". This sort of thread is interesting in and of itself to the general reader. They can look at the list and go "urgh!" that Tielhard has disgusting tastes or they can think that sounds nice perhaps I should try it.

If we now consider a thread on "what is your favourite film" one can take the same approach to posting as we used above. Examples might be; "2001", "TLOTR", "Carry on Dick" and "Police Academy XXXXIV". It is much less satisfying for the reader than the previous thread. All he/she can get from the thread is ‘yes I saw that, and either it’s ok or not’ or ‘I wonder what that is about?’. If however we add some explanation to the posts "My favourite movie is Police Academy XXXXIV because it carries on a long comic tradition which has been finely honed over many movies", it is much more fun for the reader and they discover a little about the movies and why the poster likes them.

The situation in this thread is a little different again. People are proposing Great Leaders and giving some explanation as to why they should be considered such. Other posters, most notably myself, but not just me are examining these explanations and testing them against agreed criteria (which as you may recall I asked you to challenge if you felt it appropriate). This is a very satisfying type of thread if you like a debate. It is also very enjoyable to read. If at the end of it we have several people that everyone agrees is a great leader so much the better.

I am taking the major role as Devil’s Advocate because I suspect there is no such thing as a Great Leader my view of history is largely in the Marxist camp which is to say I think that when it is time for railways to be built people will come along to build railways. The alternative view of history due to Carlyle is that a Great Man (yes male gender I am afraid) appears builds railways and then everyone gets in on the act. So you see I am quite neutral.

Interestingly for me and quite unexpectedly given my position described above nobody seems to have found any reason why DeGaulle should not be considered a Great Leader. In other words it would be quite wrong for you to conclude that I have either blanket rubbished all the candidates or that I have selected your candidates for particular abuse.

In reply to your specific points:

"So please don't dictate who I can and who I cannot nominate as the greatest leader."

I have not nor would I. What I have done is to evaluate your nominees against the proposed criteria and found them wanting, so have others. So whist both Kennedy and Clinton may remain Great Leaders in your eyes for as long as you wish there is no general agreement from the rest of us that they are Great Leaders. If you feel I have been harsh why not try to explain further what it is Mr. Clinton did that made him a Great Leader?

" … you can't dictate my opinions on who is or who is not a great leader.". Absolutely true. Given time, a dank cell with lots of free running water, a rubber hose, matches under the finger nails and creative use of a bacon slicer I am sure I could dictate your opinions but the virtual versions of these implements just don’t have the same impact do they? Enough silliness, what I want to do is not to "dictate your opinions" but to give you the opportunity to present them in the best possible light and others the opportunity and information to consider them in a dispassionate way.

I have no idea who is "The Greatest Leader Of All Time", and I'm not sure it is possible to make any valid determination about who would walk off with such an honor.

One effect of a great leader is his/her personal, emotional impact on the people of his/her time. This direct, personal impact can sometimes be gleaned from historical accounts, but it may not capture the charisma of the person as it was experienced by the people of the time. And I do think that charisma may be a very important aspect of leadership because it involves personal attributes that contribute to galvanizing a group. I also think that being in the right place at the right time elevates many to a leadership stature they might not have otherwise gained. Leaders also have to be able to translate ideas and visions into action--they have to provide clear behavioral paths for followers to trod upon. They also have to make most people feel very identified with a group--generally a group with somewhat lofty ideals so that group members can feel somewhat superior and important by their participation.

In the main I agree with Tielhard's criteria:

"A galvanizing vision for their people.
Lead their countries to a new frontier politically, religiously or philosophically successfully
Relative long-term success of their ideas or institutions.
Interesting and innovative ways of achieving the above
Some consideration of the wellbeing of their people"

Since I think that personal impact is important, I'll offer a few choices based on people who actually affected me, or those close to me, during my lifetime.

I would put John Kennedy on my list (I can see DakotaNorth smiling in agreement). Forget the Bay Of Pigs, or the insidious involvement in Vietnam. Those things did not diminish his luster during his lifetime (Vietnam did not become much of an issue at all during his presidency). He presented a very galvanizing vision to the American people of a courage and determination which would someday take us to the moon--and the space program became part of the national pastime and our astronauts became real heros. He presented an image of Americans who could bring help and support to all parts of the world in need and he provided a vehicle--the Peace Corps--for them to be able to bring it to life. Young Americans did fan out to all parts of the globe, bringing a positive image of America along with them. He presented a calm courage and a determination to be unflinching in the face of communist and nuclear threats--and the Cuban Missile Blockade more than enough made up for the folly of the Bay Of Pigs, and the country did trust him and put it's faith in his strength during those very nerve wracking days. I think that the promise of true civil rights really saw the light of day under Kennedy and, for once, we saw the federal government taking a stand to promote the intentions of our constitution and erase the blight of segregation. Kennedy truly excited idealistic passions and a commitment to high standards and expectations. Given the brevity of his term, the effects of his leadership were quite remarkable. While a good part of the "Camelot" mystique was crafted after his death, his actual impact on the country was genuinely exhilarating, particularly in contrast to the semi-stupor and smugness of the Eisenhower era. He did make people feel that they wanted to do something good and that change was possible and that people could be an active part of it. I would give him high marks for leadership in that regard.

Much of what I have just said about Kennedy also applies to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who I feel was a remarkable leader with an equally galvanizing idealistic vision. He also offered concrete tools and behaviors so that others could follow him in a participatory way. He did bring racial groups together in a common fight for social justice. He did provide a model of courage and determination and dignity. He did make people feel that change was possible--and we witnessed changes occurring. He was an incredibly inspiring man. There has been no one to replace him, in terms of leadership ability, in the fight for civil rights.

I think I would also add Franklin Delano Roosevelt to my list, partly because I find it hard to ignore a man who held the Presidency longer than any other. He clearly was a leader the country wanted to hold onto. I think he did create innovative and creative programs to deal with the harshness of The Depression. He did bring a sense of hope and a promise of dignity with him. He did open the door for group participation to achieve an ideal. He did expand the influence and ingenuity of the government to effectively address social problems. I do not feel that he allowed "rampant racism" to fester in this country, as Tielhard apparently does. He confronted first a major domestic economic crisis and then a major military crisis, with little time to spare to address the pre-existing racial situation in this country. But basic racism (including the Japanese internment camps--which had as much to do with national panic as with racism) was really no worse under Roosevelt than it was before, and I do not see that as detracting from his stature or his accomplishments. Hindsight teaches many lessons. During his lifetime, Roosevelt did inspire, and he did galvanize the country for positive effect.

I think I would add Hitler to my list also. He does fit most of the criteria mentioned by Tielhard, although many of his visions relied on military conquests and the destruction and obliteration of enemies, both foreign and domestic.
I would personally prefer to think of truly great leaders as those with more positive visions, and those who do show us the way to bring out the best in ourselves without destroying others in the process, but it's hard to deny that Hitler did have some sort of inspiring leadership ability and he certainly had a profound impact on his time. But I think his legacy is of such overwhelming negativity that it also makes a case for removing him from the list of great leaders as well.

ChelseaBelle,

I was really hoping that someone else would respond to your post. I felt that it would be unfair and biased of me to act as Devil's Advocate to someone (Kennedy) I felt such a strong antipathy for. Still, no one else did so here we go:

I should start out with a minor correction to your post; the criteria you agree with and which you restate are due to thejazzkickazz. The ones proposed by other posters and I, you either reject or have ignored.

You suggest that it helps if a leader is 'in the right place at the right time', this is of course effectively supporting the Marxist view of history. It is curious that having implicitly agreed with the idea that there are no great leaders, because anyone can be one if they are in the right place at the right time, that you then decided to propose four candidates for the post? The first point to note then, is that your criteria for a Great Leader differ from the agreed criteria in that you would have preferred your leaders to have failed the 'tides of history test'. OK, that is not a problem we can examine the case in both ways if we need to.

The second point to note is that you also imply that a leader should have charisma and that this should be one of the criteria for the selection of a great leader. I have thought about this a great deal. Whilst I agree with her that many leaders do indeed have great personal charisma, three of your choices; Hitler, Kennedy and King are very good examples, many do not, for example your other selection; FDR. So I do not agree that charisma is necessary in a great leader. I do agree that any number of leaders exhibit great personal charisma.

It did occur to me that if charisma was to be a major factor in great leadership then one should surely consider Kennedy's nemesis at the Bay of Pigs the good Dr. G. to be the Greatest Leader of the 20th century? In many South American and African countries his iconography is indistinguishable from that of Christ. Whenever the poor of the third world rise up against oppression, particularly USA sponsored oppression his shade is always at the forefront.

Let us consider the candidates:

Adolph Hitler

When I first read this in your post ChelseaBelle, I laughed out loud. Ten minutes beforehand I had just been watching a tape of one of the last episodes of 'The world at war' the one that shows the fall of Berlin. I watched the Red Flag raised above the ruined capital of a broken nation. The remaining German soldiers were being hunted down like dogs and their families were huddled in cellars and sewers. No, Hitler has no possible claim on the title of Great Leader as a number of earlier posters have demonstrated.

Martin King

This is a very parochial choice and I had to do some background reading because I was not sure that I was familiar enough with the man's history to do him justice.

I will first note that King was one Black leader among many, he was never able to unite all sections of the Black communities of the USA behind his goals or more especially to endorse his methods.

King manifestly failed in his objectives, Black people are still not equal to their White neighbours in the USA. There is equality under the law but that law is not applied equally. Most especially of all there is no economic equality between Blacks and the rest of the population. The distribution of earnings for Blacks has a far lower mean than that of the general population. I note also that King recognised that economic equality was crucial and towards the end of his life began to change the direction of his campaigning to address this issue. Finally, I feel confident that King, were he alive today would not regard himself as a Great Leader.

Franklin Roosevelt

I copied your spelling of his name here ChelseaBelle as I can never get it right. I note in passing that FDR had the charisma of a dead cat and that this failing was commented on in his first term.

I actually like FDR, as an Englishman I should probably hold him responsible for the break-up of the Empire but I don't, he is not a bad leader by any stretch of the imagination.

The way he dealt with the Great Depression was admirable, he probably did not do as much as he wanted too but then he had to carry the country with him. Many of the ideas he deployed were not original having been nicked from the Scandinavians. Having said that, anyone who can force feed the USA a diet of Socialism for several years and not let them know what they are swallowing has to have 'Interesting and innovative ways of achieving' their ideas.

So what can be held against him? Perhaps his failure to declare war on Nazi Germany. Even after it became clear atrocities were being committed in Europe he did nothing. In the event the Japanese and Germans declared war on the USA. Incredibly, when war finally began the USA was STILL unprepared for it.

Secondly racism. Unlike some presidents he knew it was wrong, you can tell this by the way elements of the ND were implemented and his instructions to the US armed forces. Yet he did little to attempt to rectify the underlying situation. You say in your post that:

'Basic racism … was really no worse under Roosevelt than it was before'. In the 1930s in some states of the USA picnics were held at which several hundred (White) people would turn up to watch an 'upitty nigger' being lynched, they even brought the kids! No worse than before perhaps, but an abomination all the same. Roosevelt could have done something about it but he did not.

You also say; '… the Japanese internment camps--which had as much to do with national panic as with racism'. The phrase 'Japanese internment camps' is a terrible lie, these camps were not internment camps, they were concentration camps and the people in them were not, for the most part Japanese, they were Americans. The phrase should read 'American concentration camps'! The problem was made worse because the USA Government denied that people of Japanese origin were citizens; even those born within its borders to those who had been born within its borders. The German-American community, a significant part of which had supported Nazism was not treated in this way.

The appalling treatment of Black American soldiers in Great Britain by the US Army particularly the Military Police is well remembered in parts of the UK. The situation got sufficiently bad and racism became so insidious that US forces began to attempt to treat soldiers from the West Indies ("King George's soldiers") in the same way as US black soldiers ("President Roosevelt's nigger boys") that I am told the King had to intervene to stop it. This last is not book learning, it is memory from living family members. The USA army is a pyramidal organisation, the President of the USA is its commander-in-chief, Roosevelt could have stopped the racism within it immediately had he the will to do so.

John Kennedy

Let's just look at the three incidents you mention, they are quite sufficient to condemn Kennedy to the slop bucket of history with Adolph, Ghengiz and the rest.

The Bay of Pigs was a fiasco. What was its objective one has to ask oneself? The end result was that the USA, one of the two most powerful nations on earth at that time demonstrated that it was incapable of invading a little island with a tiny army situated just off the USA coast. Nobody and I mean nobody, neither the Soviets, nor the Cubans, nor the American people nor anyone else anywhere believed US denials that it was responsible for the unprovoked attack. Everyone knew it looked, quaked and waddled like a duck with 'made in the USA' stamped on its bum. The result was to reduce the USA's credibility in both diplomatic and military matters and to alert the world to just how the CIA was behaving.

The missile crisis. The Soviet Union began to install intermediate range nuclear missiles on Cuba, an independent sovereign state. Kennedy held that these were a threat to the USA (they were), he demanded that they be removed and he brought the world to the brink of nuclear war to force the issue, the Soviets backed down. This is the standard version. What really happened was that the USA had to agree to remove USA nuclear missiles threatening the USSR from Turkey and undertake not to invade Cuba in order to get the Soviets to remove their missiles. Well before the end of the decade the Soviet Union had more than enough ICBMs and SLBMs to completely sterilise the whole of the USA several times over. So what did Kennedy gain by risking everything and by everything I mean human life on Earth? Very little, perhaps seven years at the very most during which time the USSR could not be sure of completely sterilising all of the USA in the event of Armageddon. Do you really think that was worth the risk? It is sometimes argued that the USSR is no more and that by 'standing up to Communism' Kennedy contributed to its demise but Russia is still there and even in its currently depleted state it can still 'cause the USA to cease to be' if it needs to do so. China, which still calls itself Communist can also pretty much make slag of the USA these days.

The space programme! Sorry I have just had to have a short break for a cup of tea and to wipe the foam from my mouth. I'm feeling much calmer now. Kennedy dedicated the huge resources of the USA to landing a man on the moon within a decade. This was probably one of the most brilliant bits of propaganda in world history. The moon is a white elephant, the Soviet Union had already taken the real prizes with Sputnik and Gagarin but the goal posts had been moved and the true prize devalued, magnificent quite magnificent. The Soviets then had to play the moon race game and of course they lost, they had but a fraction of the USA's resources. Unfortunately the American government also forgot that the moon was not only a white elephant but also a dead end. Giving the Engineers a very short time-scale and carte blanche was Kennedy's terrible mistake they sent Armstrong and Aldrin to the moon in the most stupid and expensive (but easiest) way possible, on the top of a giant and incredibly inefficient stage rocket. The sensible approach to space exploration that up until then the Soviets had (mostly) been taking was a step at a time. The way forward should have been via space stations and inter-orbital ferries. Of course this did not happen.

The USA's space programme has never recovered from Kennedy's great white elephant hunt, the direction it took and the attitudes it engendered. Indeed the hunt was so expensive even for the USA that it had to be called off early. Today the USA which has spent far more on space than any other nation is third or forth option as launcher supplier if you want a commercial satellite put in orbit and that is just part of Kennedy's legacy to the space programme.

1. Hitler wasn't an irrational madman, that's just what people say when they don't want to believe that a sane man could do what he did.
2.Teaching people to hate isn't a great achievement, it's one of the easiest things in the world.
3.He didn't rally a nation to conquer Europe, he rallied them to commit Genocide and later led them to self-destruction.
4. As for his military tactics, it's not very difficult to win when facing small countries who are vastly outnumbered and outgunned (one of the sadly comical visions that WWII brings to mind is that of antiquated Polish cavalry units riding out to face the German tanks) and France, who have a habit of surrendering before the first shot is fired.
5.Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Russia) was the first military campaign in which he faced an enemy that was any kind of match for the German army, and then he made the exact same mistakes as Napoleon had made more than a century before. Failure to learn from the past is the mark of the worst leaders in history, not the best.

CB, I'm very surprised indeed that you even consider Hitler as a serious candidate. In fact, he's already been discussed and dismissed in this thread, largely for the reasons that snm gives.

There are a few more general points:

1. It's very important to distinguish leadership from demagoguery (rabble-rousing). Being an effective demagogue is relatively easy if you're addressing an audience with a sense of grievance ... Plugging into grievances and whipping up hatred isn't leadership - it's something rather different, and nasty.

2. It's important *not* to confuse leadership with charisma. 'Great leaders' may or may not have charisma, but many odious, psychothathic leaders of cults also have charisma, too.

3. For these reasons, as I've already said much earlier in this thread, there really has to be some kind of moral dimension to the notion of 'great leader' - otherwise, it's easy to includes the Hitlers and Koreshes plus a of this world plus some of more successful 'godfathers' and the like.

Hi, snm. Very succint post. I agree with your view that Hitler wasn't a madman. Like almost the entire Nazi leadership he was very ordinary - or, as Hermann Glaser has put it, 'extraordinary in his ordinariness, a man who excelled in mediocrity'. Of course, the fact that very ordinary people can behave so abominably is frightening: it is much more comfortable to assume that they are insane - but that really merits a thread in its own right.

There's another little point about Hitler. Long, long ago I saw the Charlie Chaplin film "The Great Dictator" ... and ever since then I've regarded Hitler not least as a funny little man. What's more, the film has had the same effect on many, may others who've watched it. How many people who've seen the film can watch Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" (a Nazi propaganda film) with a straight face? I'd expect a 'great leader' to be rather less easy to rubbish ...