Would I make a good or bad leader ?

Post Reply New Topic

I've said in one of my previous threads in terms of the political divide I'm probably somewhere in between the left and the right. I seem to feel if was a world leader I'd be quite problematic as it would seem that I would be on nobody's side. I have often read history and thought to myself If I'd been in charge I would have done this and wouldn't have done that. For example I am not an american but if I had been the president I wouldn't have sent arms to regimes that were killing their own people or groups that were committing atrocities such as what happened in Latin and South America and wouldn't have gone into Vietnam. Having said that, it does sound like I'd have quite strained or problematic relations with other countries if I don't side with someone just because their human rights record is abhorrent or something. I do remember someone saying if you see something terrible happening in the world and you want it to stop and not willing to send your own troops then you'll need allies and sometimes those allies won't be perfect people and nearly every country on this planet has a terrible human rights record.

Dunno.

Depends what you’d do live in the moment, not what you would have done in 2020 hindsight.

_________________
No for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.

There are no good leaders.

To some extent one's appearance of being a good or a bad leader depends on the quality of the followers who apply action to the leader's desires.

The best leaders are those with no followers.

hmm. yeah. We'd all like tothink of ourselves as not selling arms to despots, but that way of thinking is maybe the reason why we don't get anywhere close to becoming world leaders.

I've been listening to talks by geostrategists for a while - it's quite fascinating, how morals play no role in their thinking- it's all about, well, strategy-
It makes me think of the Melian Dialogue. During the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians came to the (strategically very important) Island of Melos. The Melians didn't not want to join the Athenians, nor give up their Island. The Athenians threatened to kill all the men and sell women and children into slavery, and establish a base on the Island to fight the Spartans.
The Melians said there's no reason, they were not interested in taking part in this, they'd stay neutral, and argued on moral grounds that killing them off was wrong. The Athenians however needed the island, so they did what they had threatened to do.
A famous quote from the dialogue is from the Melian negotiator: "the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must"

It's not that the US are fond of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. But they need the oil, they need the strategic partner, they don't need anymore chaos in that part of the American Empire- so they support the Saudis as long as the Saudis are of use to them.
The same thing with China - everyone knows whatever there's going on in Xinjiang is a violation of human rights. But China is manufacturing EVERYTHING and buys a lot- no one dates losing them as trade partner, so they can do what they want, domestically.

The qualities required to *rise* to a position of leadership are often very different from - and sometimes the exact opposite of - the qualities required to *sustain* the position of leadership.

The former requires an entrepreneurial mindset with a focus on change, initiative and boldness, while the latter requires a bureaucratic mindset with a focus on stability, patience and prudence.

This is likely the case regardless of the moral character of the leader (if any). An incompetent malevolent dictator is as likely (if not more so) to be deposed as an incompetent benevolent dictator.

That depends on what your stance on life issues are.