Will there be 21 century leaders worthy of a future Civ game?

[Jerman]

man china aint never gonna conquer the USA man if they come down in are hood man they all going get blown away i mean there aint no way they ever going take texas and missippi and tennsee and alabama because we got guns to resist their communsism with
Moderator Action: Please do not post such utter nonsense.

Jeff Foxworthy says, "You know your a redneck when you start talking about the southern states shooting commies."

 

[Darkfeather]

Jeff Foxworthy says, "You know your a redneck when you start talking about the southern states shooting commies."

I've never heard of Jeff Foxworthy, but I know wise words when I hear them.

 

[Jerman]

I've never heard of Jeff Foxworthy, but I know wise words when I hear them.

Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Something tells me that the guy who allows this:
(North Korean Mickey Mouse rip-off)


Will be far more influential than his father or grandfather in the long run. Too soon to tell though, as are all other 21st century leaders.

 

[Fabiano79]

Lula is probably the best candidate so far. He is still around and is very likely that he will return to power or mantain his power through political allies in Brazil for a long time.

Theres also a chance that he will get some kind of UN role soon. Hes recovering from cancer right now, but he was already invited to be ambassador of the good will (not sure of what this means) and was a likely candidate for secretary-general (Hugo Chaves told reporters several times that he would put Lula's name as a candidate as soon as Ban ki-moon retires).

 

[Luckystrike77]

Under Vladimir Putin Russia has risen to a Great Power again, with it's sphere of influences much more respected then during Jeltsin. I'd say Putin is the number one candidate for Civ when it comes to world leaders the last 12 years.

 

[Gucumatz]

So for the most part I agree with the two names floating up here at the top.

Lula of Brazil and Putin of Russia. I still think its a bit too early to say for either what their "future histories" will look like - but they have both been strong powerful leaders so far

 

[northtexan95]

Under Vladimir Putin Russia has risen to a Great Power again, with it's sphere of influences much more respected then during Jeltsin. I'd say Putin is the number one candidate for Civ when it comes to world leaders the last 12 years.

He's the guy who first came to my mind.

 

[Tavenier]

Vladimir Putin indedd is a good candidate. And although not in power anymore, bu still alive and legendary, I think of Mandela. Like Ghandi+

 

[fromeast2west]

Obama could make it if he gets the first people to Mars (OK, unlikely to actually happen under his actual term in office)

MT for making Great Britain a player again, or maybe one of the Royals if they actually do something more important than appear on a tabloid cover?

Were there any formative leaders involved in the creation of the EU? (a new single Civ in a future version of the game).

 

[Carnifaux]

Under Vladimir Putin Russia has risen to a Great Power again, with it's sphere of influences much more respected then during Jeltsin. I'd say Putin is the number one candidate for Civ when it comes to world leaders the last 12 years.

You have to be a paradox game enthusiast to use that much Vicky terminology in one post. And if so, you have good taste.

To contribute: I agree with Putin, but his story hasn't ended yet so we can't really make a judgment yet. I don't think a government in exile like that of Tibet would really translate well to civilization so that's a no to the Dalai Lama. Besides, I think there will be far more momentous events to come in the next 88 years than what has transpired in the 12 we have experienced.

 

[chazzycat]

Hillary Clinton.

 

[patsfan454]

Hillary Clinton.

the scary thing is you may be right

 

[Rooftrellen]

I think the most likely leader so far in the 21st century to make it into a future civ game is Elizabeth II.

Lula has way too much competition as I have already mentioned, and I can't imagine him getting closer than #2 on the Brazilian leader list (and I would say he is currently 3 or 4 on the list.)

Putin would be an option, but I have to wonder how history will judge him, and a KGB officer will be risky to add for a heck of a long time, regardless.

Elizabeth II, however, helped lead England though World War II in spite of her age (not as queen, mind you, but she was an important figure as princess and next in line for the throne), became queen soon after the war and has ruled since, being probably as important as royalty can be within the current framework of the government.

Still, 12 years into the century, many leaders haven't even finished their terms, and we've only seen a small portion of the new countries and alliances that will rise to power.

 

[PhilBowles]

Elizabeth II, however, helped lead England though World War II in spite of her age (not as queen, mind you, but she was an important figure as princess and next in line for the throne), became queen soon after the war and has ruled since, being probably as important as royalty can be within the current framework of the government.

Still, 12 years into the century, many leaders haven't even finished their terms, and we've only seen a small portion of the new countries and alliances that will rise to power.

The problem with Elizabeth II is that, to a greater extent than was at least perceived to be the case during Victoria's reign (before Elizabeth, the country's longest-reigning monarch and also one who was latterly popular with her people), Britain is in a prime minsterial era. Periods aren't seen by reigns (like the 'Victorian era') any more or characterised on those timescales - the leaders remembered during Elizabeth's reign are such people as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, while Churchill is better-remembered than Elizabrth for boosting morale during the war for all that his practical leadership credentials were strongly criticised in both wars and the actual military operations he took charge of (from Gallipoli in WWI to the abortive invasion of Norway in WWII) were mostly disastrous.

 

[Darkfeather]

Hillary Clinton.

Er, why?

 

[Gucumatz]

I think its a running joke/speculation that she will run after Obama again. People don't seem to have any favorites for the Democratic nomination then other than her. And Elizabeth Warren who some of the base are speculating has no chance whatsoever

 

[patsfan454]

Er, why?

better than bush or obama at this point

 

[3335d]

better than bush or obama at this point

Bill Clinton got through the first 20 days of the 21st century. He seems to be the best 21st century leader for the United States, if we were to add one. Then Bush ruined it.

 

[Rooftrellen]

The problem with Elizabeth II is that, to a greater extent than was at least perceived to be the case during Victoria's reign (before Elizabeth, the country's longest-reigning monarch and also one who was latterly popular with her people), Britain is in a prime minsterial era. Periods aren't seen by reigns (like the 'Victorian era') any more or characterised on those timescales - the leaders remembered during Elizabeth's reign are such people as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, while Churchill is better-remembered than Elizabrth for boosting morale during the war for all that his practical leadership credentials were strongly criticised in both wars and the actual military operations he took charge of (from Gallipoli in WWI to the abortive invasion of Norway in WWII) were mostly disastrous.

I think that because some things are so recent, we may not see their full effect for some time.

I can very easily see a time in the future when the era of Queen Elizabeth II is the subject of study.

What she did after WWII was much less than what her father did after WWI, but he isn't very well known. Something like that, however, is a footnote to her. She's going to go down in history much like Elizabeth I, I imagine, someone who isn't known for per politics as much as her actions outside of what is of someone who is queen.

Nevermind the crown, the fact that she is a queen on 5 different continents in a moment in history when monarchs are a dying breed. How much has she helped not just her country(ies) but the world as a whole though unofficial means, in ways a king or queen isn't expected to do?

The term "New Elizabethan Era" already exists, and I firmly expect it to stick and for her to be remembered long after other names of that era have been forgotten.