4 ms·

I have high hopes for Elizabeth Warren. I also hope Lawrence Lessig runs for national office someday. But the general trend you refer to is accurate. The vario

by lukifer 13y ago

I have high hopes for Elizabeth Warren. I also hope Lawrence Lessig runs for national office someday. But the general trend you refer to is accurate. The various vested interests have got character assassination down to a science, and anyone who doesn't play ball at least a little tends to be filtered out of the political process.

tome 13y ago
I agree that there are no great world leaders at the moment but that doesn't mean we "no longer" have them. Clinton was the most recent great leader in the West, in my opinion. We could easily have another in the next decade. Blair was nearly there, as is Merkel, though she feels like more of an administrator than a leader.
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  I fail to see either of them as great. They're the difference between a (wo)man in office saying right words and one saying wrong words. They certainly got most of their words right but anyone could say those. From great leader I expect doing something nobody else in their position could.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    I could make a case that a good leader is mostly hot air. What distinguishes a great leader is performing the right words and gestures for their zeitgeist, thereby becoming a symbolic figurehead that shapes broad social forces into real progress. Perhaps, then, our lack of good leaders is not about the leaders themselves, but rather due to the fragmentation of cultures and social institutions.
    - guard-of-terra 13y ago
      That fragmentation thing is dangerous because fragmented people have troubles maintaining their rights. We desperately need politicians that will figure out this fragmentation thing.
      - lukifer 13y ago
        That, or bottom-up big-tent coalitions that can stitch together a bunch of fragmented groups. (For all their many faults, the Republicans had this formula perfected in the 80's and early 00's.)
        guard-of-terra 13y ago
        You have to adapt this formula to a post-revolution country where nobody trusts nobody, nobody knows what they want, people have bizzare ideas that have nothing in common with reality (think religions), and there is no political rallying point to stitch groups around.
- dageshi 13y ago
  Especially in the case of Blair and Clinton, they were in power during relatively benign economic times. I can't help but feel that it's easy to like people who never had any really serious problems to deal with. Certainly not on the scale of those imposed by the financial crisis/euro crisis. But I will grant you, they both had something about them, a force of personality perhaps that exceeds many other politicians.
- mhurron 13y ago
  What did Clinton do that would qualify him for great? Honestly, from where I'm sitting, what did Clinton do that set him apart from any other President at all? And Tony Blair? A head of state that was just seen as a puppet of another as 'almost great'?
  - tome 13y ago
    I won't argue that Clinton was great like JFK, or even Reagan, but when fishing for great Western leaders of the past thirty years is there anyone else who comes out better? Blair on the other hand led the reformation of the Labour party and made them electable again, whilst mainaining Britain's standing on the world stage, far from a puppet actually.
    - mhurron 13y ago
      >I won't argue that Clinton was great like JFK, or even Reagan, but when fishing for great Western leaders of the past thirty years is there anyone else who comes out better? Better by comparison is not the same as great. It is quite possible that there be no great leaders. I do not know of anything Clinton did that would be great. >Blair on the other hand led the reformation of the Labour party and made them electable again, whilst mainaining Britain's standing on the world stage, far from a puppet actually. Making a party electable again may be a sign of a savvy leader, but it is not greatness. Britian's standing on the world stage under Blair was one of a lapdog in many circles. Again, a leader that garners the reputation as a puppet is not a great leader.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Merkel is quite the opposite of great. While she would make a decent politician in a regional level, as the recent history shows she lacks the abilities to deal on global (or even European stage) Clinton had the benefit of cashing on the post cold war sole super power golden decade and the upper slope of the dot com bubble. His mishandling of the Kosovo events set a ticking time bomb there.
- smsm42 13y ago
  What's so great about Clinton? Except giving endless material for comic shows and explicit jokes, I have hard time recalling something that would nominate him personally for greatness.

by lukifer 13y ago

tome 13y ago

I agree that there are no great world leaders at the moment but that doesn't mean we "no longer" have them. Clinton was the most recent great leader in the West, in my opinion. We could easily have another in the next decade. Blair was nearly there, as is Merkel, though she feels like more of an administrator than a leader.

guard-of-terra 13y ago
I fail to see either of them as great. They're the difference between a (wo)man in office saying right words and one saying wrong words. They certainly got most of their words right but anyone could say those. From great leader I expect doing something nobody else in their position could.
- lukifer 13y ago
  I could make a case that a good leader is mostly hot air. What distinguishes a great leader is performing the right words and gestures for their zeitgeist, thereby becoming a symbolic figurehead that shapes broad social forces into real progress. Perhaps, then, our lack of good leaders is not about the leaders themselves, but rather due to the fragmentation of cultures and social institutions.
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    That fragmentation thing is dangerous because fragmented people have troubles maintaining their rights. We desperately need politicians that will figure out this fragmentation thing.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      That, or bottom-up big-tent coalitions that can stitch together a bunch of fragmented groups. (For all their many faults, the Republicans had this formula perfected in the 80's and early 00's.)
      - guard-of-terra 13y ago
        You have to adapt this formula to a post-revolution country where nobody trusts nobody, nobody knows what they want, people have bizzare ideas that have nothing in common with reality (think religions), and there is no political rallying point to stitch groups around.
dageshi 13y ago
Especially in the case of Blair and Clinton, they were in power during relatively benign economic times. I can't help but feel that it's easy to like people who never had any really serious problems to deal with. Certainly not on the scale of those imposed by the financial crisis/euro crisis. But I will grant you, they both had something about them, a force of personality perhaps that exceeds many other politicians.
mhurron 13y ago
What did Clinton do that would qualify him for great? Honestly, from where I'm sitting, what did Clinton do that set him apart from any other President at all? And Tony Blair? A head of state that was just seen as a puppet of another as 'almost great'?
- tome 13y ago
  I won't argue that Clinton was great like JFK, or even Reagan, but when fishing for great Western leaders of the past thirty years is there anyone else who comes out better? Blair on the other hand led the reformation of the Labour party and made them electable again, whilst mainaining Britain's standing on the world stage, far from a puppet actually.
  - mhurron 13y ago
    >I won't argue that Clinton was great like JFK, or even Reagan, but when fishing for great Western leaders of the past thirty years is there anyone else who comes out better? Better by comparison is not the same as great. It is quite possible that there be no great leaders. I do not know of anything Clinton did that would be great. >Blair on the other hand led the reformation of the Labour party and made them electable again, whilst mainaining Britain's standing on the world stage, far from a puppet actually. Making a party electable again may be a sign of a savvy leader, but it is not greatness. Britian's standing on the world stage under Blair was one of a lapdog in many circles. Again, a leader that garners the reputation as a puppet is not a great leader.
venomsnake 13y ago
Merkel is quite the opposite of great. While she would make a decent politician in a regional level, as the recent history shows she lacks the abilities to deal on global (or even European stage) Clinton had the benefit of cashing on the post cold war sole super power golden decade and the upper slope of the dot com bubble. His mishandling of the Kosovo events set a ticking time bomb there.
smsm42 13y ago
What's so great about Clinton? Except giving endless material for comic shows and explicit jokes, I have hard time recalling something that would nominate him personally for greatness.