Best leader your country never had

Ben Franklin (though he was also a bit out there)
George Mason
Fiorello LaGuardia (my blatant like of NYC)
Mickey Mantle (my blatant like of NYC)
Rudy Giuliani (my blatant like of NYC)
 
Every person I admire for their social or political ideals and history would have failed miserably as President, since the system surrounding them is set up to prevent the accomplishment of anything close to what they championed. In many ways what those folks achieved was only possible outside the system.

Off the top of my head if I had to think of US presidential candidates whose ideals and history of activism I (mostly) really admired, I'd say: (bhsup, avert your eyes)

Ralph Nader
Eugene V. Debs
George McGovern
Jesse Jackson
Dennis Kucinich (wants to auto-correct to zucchini)

Probably missing a few there. If my list was expanded to just any public figure my list would be pretty long...

Also I don't really admire him very much, so remove that from the question and I'd say the best leader we never (recently) had was Al Gore, solely on the basis that he was not George W. Bush.

I'm curious. What actually speaks to you in favor of a Jesse Jackson presidency? I'm not seeing it at all.
 
Look at the names on the list... Jackson is hardly the least qualified... Kucinich is a total nutter, for example.
In fact, Jackson, as a professional shakedown artist, is probably quite well qualified.
 
Gorbachev.

I am reading Gorbachevs memoirs and I think the dude is just phenomenal. To be able to climb up the power ladder of communist party to politburo and then do what every dissenter of the regime could only dream of by taking practically U-turn on every policy of the country is simply phenomenal....
 
I am thinking of Wallenstein.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_von_Wallenstein
Able politician and military genius from Bohemia who would be practically undefeated through out the Thirthy years war but who even before was assasinated on kaisers order lost his life to syphilis.
 
Wallenstein was also one of the most hated people of the war for his extensive and ruthless looting, if I recall, and that's saying something.
ehm...
Wallenstein's particular genius lay in recognizing a new way for funding war: instead of merely plundering enemies, he called for a new method of systematic "war taxes". Even a city or a prince on the side of the Emperor had to pay taxes towards the war. He understood the enormous wastage of resources that resulted from tax exactions on princes and cities of defeated enemies only, and desired to replace this with a "balanced" system of taxation; wherein both sides bore the cost of a war. He was unable to fully realize this ambition; and in fact his idea led to the random exploitation of whole populations on either side, until finally, almost fifteen years after his death, the war had become so expensive that the warring parties were forced to make peace. In any case, Wallenstein's idea inspired many, among them, Colbert, to "pluck the goose with a minimum of screeching".
 
Pyrrhos might have been a good pan-hellenic leader. He basically was Alexander with a smaller army/resources. He would destroy the Romans with a larger army (as would Hannibal, if the super-out of touch Seleukid/Ptolemaic/other Greeks answered back his call for help).

Maybe Pyrrhos was even better a general than Alexander, i don't know. Hannibal seems to have named him second to Alexander, though.



Edit:

As for the Byzantine Era, it is highly likely that Georgios Maniakes would have faired better than the scum up to Matzikert, and he had almost taken the Empire in the 1040s. (he was scum too, i suppose, but of a different kind)..
 
Interesting thread idea. I'd probably go with Ben Franklin, Bobby Kennedy, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but I think I could be talked into a lot of other figures in the 20th century.
 
Barry Goldwater.
 
I am reading Gorbachevs memoirs and I think the dude is just phenomenal. To be able to climb up the power ladder of communist party to politburo and then do what every dissenter of the regime could only dream of by taking practically U-turn on every policy of the country is simply phenomenal....

I think the USA would greatly benefit by having someone come along who could oversee the first stages of dissolution without massive loss of life. Unfortunately Gorbachev was Russian and probably one of a kind. When the USA dissolves we will most likely be stuck with a nutter.
 
Humphry instead of Nixon as president and Mondale instead of Reagan, if only due to home state loyalties.
(GO MINNESOTA!)
Other than that, I don't really know enough to say.
 
I'm curious. What actually speaks to you in favor of a Jesse Jackson presidency? I'm not seeing it at all.

Great civil rights career, worked with MLK, championed "race unification" and cooperation concepts that focused on similar economic plight of all races rather than some of the more polarizing civil rights leaders of the 60's, 70's, and 80's, has a surprisingly successful and ballsy record of international hostage negotiations and peace negotiations in international conflicts, had an awesome Presidential platform in the 80's (he was into single payer UHC before it was cool, he is the Hipster of healthcare reform)... I could go on and just recite his wiki page as one long fabulous resume but I won't. Actually out of that entire list he probably had the most "chops" of anyone to actually be a leader. He was unfortunately marred in the 80's presidential runs, his son has stained his legacy quite a bit, he has a few bad/stupid quotes out there that he has since apologized for, and as a black national figure being one or two degrees removed from shady people and/or criminals is much harder to deal with than as a white national figure (yeah I said that, because it is true) so his reputation has (unfairly IMHO) been tainted.

Like I said as my initial qualifier in the real world, no one on my list probably would have actually been effective as President since the ideas they had that I like (single payer, reduced defense spending, increasing social safety nets, creating more job programs for the poor, rolling back Regan tax cuts, etc.) became pretty hard coded into the establishment and almost everyone (democrat and republican) had an interest in blocking those sorts of radical reforms. But if you strip away that unfortunate reality and just look at what he could have accomplished if the system around him would have supported it, it would have been interesting, at the very least.
 
Great civil rights career, worked with MLK, championed "race unification" and cooperation concepts that focused on similar economic plight of all races rather than some of the more polarizing civil rights leaders of the 60's, 70's, and 80's, has a surprisingly successful and ballsy record of international hostage negotiations and peace negotiations in international conflicts, had an awesome Presidential platform in the 80's (he was into single payer UHC before it was cool, he is the Hipster of healthcare reform)... I could go on and just recite his wiki page as one long fabulous resume but I won't. Actually out of that entire list he probably had the most "chops" of anyone to actually be a leader. He was unfortunately marred in the 80's presidential runs, his son has stained his legacy quite a bit, he has a few bad/stupid quotes out there that he has since apologized for, and as a black national figure being one or two degrees removed from shady people and/or criminals is much harder to deal with than as a white national figure (yeah I said that, because it is true) so his reputation has (unfairly IMHO) been tainted.

Like I said as my initial qualifier in the real world, no one on my list probably would have actually been effective as President since the ideas they had that I like (single payer, reduced defense spending, increasing social safety nets, creating more job programs for the poor, rolling back Regan tax cuts, etc.) became pretty hard coded into the establishment and almost everyone (democrat and republican) had an interest in blocking those sorts of radical reforms. But if you strip away that unfortunate reality and just look at what he could have accomplished if the system around him would have supported it, it would have been interesting, at the very least.

Fair enough, it's the sort of wondering that makes me think that Barry Goldwater's influence on American conservatism before it became tied at the hip to religious conservatism might have sped up things like the fight for gay rights by decades. One can dream.
 
In my lifetime? Only realistic one who stand out is Al Gore. When he got robbed of the election is where I first started giving a damn about politics.

I don't think Al Gore would've been the greatest leader but he seems to be one of the older potential presidents who actually gives a real honest damn about the greatest issue of our lifetimes. Likely he wouldn't have been able to budge the tide much but at least it would've been something. Now it's just gonna be mostly mitigation of worst case scenarios.
 
Great civil rights career, worked with MLK, championed "race unification" and cooperation concepts that focused on similar economic plight of all races rather than some of the more polarizing civil rights leaders of the 60's, 70's, and 80's, has a surprisingly successful and ballsy record of international hostage negotiations and peace negotiations in international conflicts, had an awesome Presidential platform in the 80's (he was into single payer UHC before it was cool, he is the Hipster of healthcare reform)... I could go on and just recite his wiki page as one long fabulous resume but I won't. Actually out of that entire list he probably had the most "chops" of anyone to actually be a leader. He was unfortunately marred in the 80's presidential runs, his son has stained his legacy quite a bit, he has a few bad/stupid quotes out there that he has since apologized for, and as a black national figure being one or two degrees removed from shady people and/or criminals is much harder to deal with than as a white national figure (yeah I said that, because it is true) so his reputation has (unfairly IMHO) been tainted.
Amongst the "bad/stupid quotes" were the following:
1) "I want to cut his nuts off", referring to Obama, whom he felt was "talking down to black people".
2) "He's acting too white", again about Obama (jealousy anyone?)
and of course...
3) "NYC is Hymietown", for those who don't know, "hymie" is a derrogatory term for Jewish people... not the best thing to say as a career "race unifier"...
Actually, that term is rather ironic, he hasn't tried to unify races at all. While he has sought to advance the plight of black americans, which I applaud, he has used race in such a divisive manner...

And, as for the stain from his son. It is generally acknowledge that papa was the one who was acting on his behalf, essentially shaking down people to get his son elected.
Not a huge surprise that his son is corrupt, as that often happens to people handed things. I don't blame Jesse for indulging his son, that's normal, human behavior.

However, it fits into his long term pattern of shakedowns, where he uses race to further himself more than his people (check out his bank situation).
 
In the netherlands this would be Pim Fortuyn. He was anti-immigration (which i did not agree with) but he was the one that was a threat to the US establishmen that controls the Netherlands ever since hitler's capitulation in 45.

Our prince Bernhard (ex-nazi) has taken money to pressure the govenment into buying Lockheed Martin, further crippling our deprived domestic aviation company Fokker. Ever since the dutch government has bought lockheed martin.

Pim Fortuyn did not agree with buying the JOint strike fighter. Which caused his party to be infiltrated by a defense lobbyist (Matt Herben.) Matt Herben took him to a conference with defense ministers and lockheed martin, who pressured him. 2 mornings after Pim Fortuyn announced on radio that he might agree with voting in favour of the JSF. 2 hours after he was killed. Matt herben ( who was only a spokesperson before) became leader of the party, and voted in favour of the JSF soon after. Then he destroyed the party, and that was that.

Then we have Henk Krol, who started a party for the elderly a few years back. However he was exposing a pedosexual who was secretary general of justice. So when his party got a few seats in parliament, he became subject to slander. Had to step down. The slander was disproven, he came back, but then an insider fight was started in the party (by an unknown woman) who then declared herself leader of the party, and now? Radiosilence.


People here believe this state to be so just and correct. While in fact its corrupt to the bone, and any real opposition in parliament will be taken down within a blink.

Now we have a Israel paid Vassal who leads the freedom party, and used immigration reform to get a lot of votes from people who got dissapointed after pim fortuyn got killed, now we have 15% of the population voting for the most blatant controlled opposition.

Long story short, were F'ed.
 
The problem was that Pim Fortuyn was a fairly outspoken Anti-monarchist, which is pretty much one of the few continuties with the past the Netherlands. In fact, Pim viewed himself as a successor of some Patriot (= French collaborators during the Napoleonic wars) leader.
So I couldn't vote for him, even if I agreed with him with all the other points.

Geert Wilders is way too base and lo-class. Overall, very unsuited to lead the country.

So I'd go for Frits Bolkestein, even if he wasn't perhaps as explicitly Conservative as I'd like him to be.
 
The OP means leaders that haven't come to power though had/have a shot at doing so. Such as Jean-Marie Le Pen, for instance...

I totally missed the 'n', so I almost answered incorrectly.

Tony Abbott. You might say he is the current PM, but right now I don't see him doing any leading and has basically allowed his party to be bullied while they should be setting the agenda. He hasn't shown any leadership like he did while in opposition.
 
John Adams, running his own cabinet (instead of keeping the Hamilton Fan Club) and with a vice president who wasn't undermining him.
 
Top Bottom