greatest modern political genius of all time

[mightfire500]

in modern history,...so from the beginning of modernity to now

 

[schlaufuchs]

in modern history,...so from the beginning of modernity to now

When are you defining "beginning of modernity"

And "political genius" in what sense? How do you want us to quantify that?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wild assumption: politics is the art/science of manipulating a voting body.

I'd say Karl Rove.

 

[mightfire500]

When are you defining "beginning of modernity"

And "political genius" in what sense? How do you want us to quantify that?

modernity meaning the period following the late middle ages

 

[Future PM]

modernity meaning the period following the late middle ages

Define "Late Middle Ages?" And even high school history puts time periods between modernity and the middle ages, so that seems to be a huge period of time you're covering, if you're using the common periodisation of the LMA. That's what, 1453-present?

You also don't explain what you mean by "modern political genius." Hitler managed to convince some of the world's leading statesmen that he was a pacifist. That seems like the act of a genius, considering what he really was. Franklin Delano Roosevelt won four U.S. Presidential elections despite a noticeable lack of talent. Henry Kissinger negotiated multiple peace treaties. Woodrow Wilson developed the League of Nations, but Immanuel Kant had the original idea. Peta Credlin managed to engineer an electoral victory for the Australian Liberal Party with someone as inherently detestable and idiotic as Tony Abbott in charge. Hedley Bull, Kenneth Waltz, Henry Morgenthau, and even Kevin Rudd have all changed the way international relations are understood. George Kennan shaped American policy during the Cold War. How exactly do we define "modern political genius?"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Define "Late Middle Ages?" And even high school history puts time periods between modernity and the middle ages, so that seems to be a huge period of time you're covering, if you're using the common periodisation of the LMA. That's what, 1453-present?

You also don't explain what you mean by "modern political genius." Hitler managed to convince some of the world's leading statesmen that he was a pacifist. That seems like the act of a genius, considering what he really was. Franklin Delano Roosevelt won four U.S. Presidential elections despite a noticeable lack of talent. Henry Kissinger negotiated multiple peace treaties. Woodrow Wilson developed the League of Nations, but Immanuel Kant had the original idea. Peta Credlin managed to engineer an electoral victory for the Australian Liberal Party with someone as inherently detestable and idiotic as Tony Abbott in charge. Hedley Bull, Kenneth Waltz, Henry Morgenthau, and even Kevin Rudd have all changed the way international relations are understood. George Kennan shaped American policy during the Cold War. How exactly do we define "modern political genius?"

A lot of those things I would call "international relations" rather than politics. Not all of them, but a lot.

 

[Plotinus]

As a working definition, I'd say that modernity began with the seventeenth century.

Also as a working definition, I'd say that political success might be measured (rather cynically) as the achievement of a politician's goals. A politician who shows great ability to do this, against serious odds, might be considered a political genius. Achieving one's goals as a leader through, say, military force or electoral intimidation might be effective, but it's not very brilliant. Doing it through clever diplomacy and manipulating others into doing what you want seems to be more of a sign of political genius.

By this measure, Hitler was a very good politician in some ways (he succeeded in becoming chancellor despite never commanding all that many votes; he succeeded in reorganising the German state and society as he wished it to be; he succeeded in rearming Germany and occupying various territories while convincing other national leaders that he wasn't going to attack anyone) though obviously he ultimately failed to achieve his aims rather spectacularly. Stalin was clearly a better politician overall. Note of course that this criterion doesn't take into account whether we approve of what their aims actually were - political ability is, in itself, morally neutral. At a less extreme level, Thatcher was clearly a superior politician to Brown, whatever one might think of their policies.

I'd say that good candidates for top politician in modern times might include Bismarck or Attlee, Richelieu, or indeed more topically Lee Kuan Yew. I'm sure there are other examples who might be better politicians but who weren't statesmen at the same level - a great politician doesn't necessarily have to be prime minister or president.

 

[Traitorfish]

John Adams, because a large part of my dissertation hinges on it. That is the only reason.

 

[Naskra]

I will interpret genius in the old sense of "ruling spirit" rather than its modern of "great ability", and say that Victoria of England was a great political genius. Her many years of sustained quiet dignity while presiding over a frothy rambunctious empire imparted a glow of just imperium to British civilization that is still not fully dissipated. Phileas Fogg, Sherlock Holmes, and Aragorn I - rational, righteous, and rigid - are all sons of Victoria.

 

[Tahuti]

Park Chung Hee springs to mind.

 

[daft]

John Adams, because a large part of my dissertation hinges on it. That is the only reason.

John Adams, hmmm, Boston Massacre - 5 American civilians killed by British Soldiers,
how about Wounded Knee Massacre? - 300 natives killed, mostly women and children, by the US army.

I vote for the peaceful Mahatma Gandhi instead.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I will interpret genius in the old sense of "ruling spirit" rather than its modern of "great ability", and say that Victoria of England was a great political genius. Her many years of sustained quiet dignity while presiding over a frothy rambunctious empire imparted a glow of just imperium to British civilization that is still not fully dissipated. Phileas Fogg, Sherlock Holmes, and Aragorn I - rational, righteous, and rigid - are all sons of Victoria.

Seriously though. No. We've been through this discussion a thousand times on WH. Victoria didn't really do much of anything worthy of praise, particularly in the realm of political acumen. Please for the love of god don't bring up Elizabeth I either. Because I will cut you.

 

[Future PM]

Seriously though. No. We've been through this discussion a thousand times on WH. Victoria didn't really do much of anything worthy of praise, particularly in the realm of political acumen. Please for the love of god don't bring up Elizabeth I either. Because I will cut you.

Hey, she managed to pop out about a thousand kids, and her hereditary haemophilia killed a bunch of monarchs and their offspring. That's worth writing home about.

 

[Traitorfish]

John Adams, hmmm, Boston Massacre - 5 American civilians killed by British Soldiers,
how about Wounded Knee Massacre? - 300 natives killed, mostly women and children, by the US army.

Eh?

 

[Flying Pig]

Seriously though. No. We've been through this discussion a thousand times on WH. Victoria didn't really do much of anything worthy of praise, particularly in the realm of political acumen. Please for the love of god don't bring up Elizabeth I either. Because I will cut you.

That's not quite what he said, though - he said that Victoria (deliberately or not) was a fantastic PR tool, and became (wittingly or not) a focal point for a highly positive image (among those who benefited from it) of Britain, the British Empire and British power. One could describe that as a matter of personal marketing skill, but as with most rulers I'd be inclined to think that it's more a matter of people selectively projecting characteristics onto her and a large amount of confirmation bias. Kafka's short story The Great Wall of China makes interesting reading on the point.

 

[Traitorfish]

Victoria's success as a PR tool had very little to do with Victoria, though. She was never particularly popular in her early reign and was actively unpopular for a lot of her middle reign. It's only with Disraeli that she's elevated to the status of national icon, and she generally seems to have hindered more than helped that project.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Park Chung Hee springs to mind.

I grinned and though "hah, a CFC poster?". Then I googled the name.

Shows how much I know about history, I guess.

 

[Lohrenswald]

It might have been some guy in India that nobody cared about and died in obscurity

 

[schlaufuchs]

Victoria's success as a PR tool had very little to do with Victoria, though. She was never particularly popular in her early reign and was actively unpopular for a lot of her middle reign. It's only with Disraeli that she's elevated to the status of national icon, and she generally seems to have hindered more than helped that project.

Yeah, this.

 

[Ajidica]

I would probably go with LBJ, Attlee, or Thatcher (like her or hate her, she did leave her mark on British politics).