Is history just a long series of charismatic, yet dumb leaders?

[rousseau]

Is history just a series of people who got excited about an idea without fully thinking it through? Or people who fully thought it through, but who were committing misdeeds?

I mean, some long-haired middle-easterner has a shroom trip and we end up with 2000 years of Christianity.

A bunch of bearded guys in Russia think Marxist thought somehow directly applies to reality and we end up with the Soviet Union.

Trump.

North Korea.

And so on.

What do you think?

 

[bigfield]

What counts as misdeeds?

 

[Bronzeage]

Is history just a series of people who got excited about an idea without fully thinking it through? Or people who fully thought it through, but who were committing misdeeds?

I mean, some long-haired middle-easterner has a shroom trip and we end up with 2000 years of Christianity.

A bunch of bearded guys in Russia think Marxist thought somehow directly applies to reality and we end up with the Soviet Union.

Trump.

North Korea.

And so on.

What do you think?

I'm not sure your analogy holds water. It's not been 2000 years of Christianity, more like 1700, depending on how you count, and then it was Constantine, one of the Roman Empire's shrewdest generals, who placed Christianity in Europe. No one ever called him dumb. There's no record of Constantine drinking mushroom tea.

Actually, history is one long succession of people who didn't think it through. If there has been one consistent observation made through all of history, it would be, "At the time, it seemed like a good idea."

 

[rousseau]

Is history just a series of people who got excited about an idea without fully thinking it through? Or people who fully thought it through, but who were committing misdeeds?

I mean, some long-haired middle-easterner has a shroom trip and we end up with 2000 years of Christianity.

A bunch of bearded guys in Russia think Marxist thought somehow directly applies to reality and we end up with the Soviet Union.

Trump.

North Korea.

And so on.

What do you think?

I'm not sure your analogy holds water. It's not been 2000 years of Christianity, more like 1700, depending on how you count, and then it was Constantine, one of the Roman Empire's shrewdest generals, who placed Christianity in Europe. No one ever called him dumb. There's no record of Constantine drinking mushroom tea.

There are a few charismatic, dumb leaders in the history of Christianity, before Constantine, starting with Jesus himself. Maybe not with the influence of Constantine, but essential to the promotion of Christianity, nonetheless.

Actually, history is one long succession of people who didn't think it through. If there has been one consistent observation made through all of history, it would be, "At the time, it seemed like a good idea."

My thinking is that people making major decisions are usually charismatic leaders. These are not always the people who are eager to sit back and think it through.

 

[DBT]

Not just dumb or ignorant but driven by ego, power and self aggrandisement. Self absorbed narcissists in charge of the State. Of course, there are exceptions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is history just a series of people who got excited about an idea without fully thinking it through? Or people who fully thought it through, but who were committing misdeeds?

I think a lot of leaders and influential persons have used drugs and/or are functionally bipolar.

 

[BH]

Back when we lived in small tribes or confederations it was easy for the regular people to watch their leaders and see the difference between what they said and what they actually did. Since life was much simpler---simpler in the fact you just ate, got shelter, got clothed and it was easy to tell if you were sheltered, clothed and fed, you could see for yourself how well your leaders led.

A long comes civilization where nations develop. You have a king who lives in a city 100 miles away. He comes by and gives a speech and its all lovely words. Pity there is no one watching him closely, or at least no one who cares---the ones around him 24/7 benefit from his cronieism. And by this point the king has a standing army. A shit army by todays standards but enough he can rally against individiual villages that per chance see through his bullcrap and try to revolt.

This is the problem with charismatic leaders. People do not know what is actually going on for the most part and they sooth their fears and frsutrations. Keep in mind a large minority of the public sees their prosperity directly rasing or falling with the leader plus so many of the public are mentally ill and can be manipulated or just plain dumb it should be easy to understand why nothing is ever done to boot these types of folks out of power.

 

[prideandfall]

Of course, there are exceptions.

no, there aren't.

there are occasionally self absorbed narcissists who drive their ego, power, and self aggrandizement by way of positive change, but it's all for the same fundamental reasons.

 

[DBT]

Of course, there are exceptions.

no, there aren't.

there are occasionally self absorbed narcissists who drive their ego, power, and self aggrandizement by way of positive change, but it's all for the same fundamental reasons.

You can't compare Marcus Aurelius to Nero or Caligula, or Gandhi to Hitler, for example. Then of course there is context, the type of society in which leaders emerge and operate, Imperial Rome was not likely to produce someone such as Gandhi....nor was I suggesting perfection, the totally selfless leader.

 

[rousseau]

I've seen some number of leaders who are fundamentally good people, Obama, and now our Trudeau come to mind. I do think, though, that the qualities needed to be a political leader are often at odds with being conscientious and empathetic.

People who are too conscientious and empathetic are often too sensitive to handle the spotlight.

 

[Ovazor]

From the Devil's dictionary:

HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

 

[untermensche]

What stupid so-called leaders do is a tiny part of history.

Really an insignificant part.

It is when some majority accepts a new idea that history is really made.

 

[rousseau]

What stupid so-called leaders do is a tiny part of history.

Really an insignificant part.

It is when some majority accepts a new idea that history is really made.

This is a good point. I sometimes wonder if the entirety of our perspectives on the modern era are all flawed, and the significance of the agricultural and industrial revolutions will only come clear in the next few thousand years. At that point I'd expect some historians to paint a picture with one distinct period where human anatomy evolved, and this led to a long slow burn into the eruption of energy extraction, culminating with the industrial revolution which is causing massive changes to the environment. Within that period it's really been the increase of population density and the subsequent improvement of technologies that have driven our history, not our leaders, as you say.

This will likely begin a new, long-term 'post-industrialization' period where human biology makes an adjustment to the new environment, and where hopefully we learn to live sustainably.

 

[untermensche]

What stupid so-called leaders do is a tiny part of history.

Really an insignificant part.

It is when some majority accepts a new idea that history is really made.

This is a good point. I sometimes wonder if the entirety of our perspectives on the modern era are all flawed, and the significance of the agricultural and industrial revolutions will only come clear in the next few thousand years. At that point I'd expect some historians to paint a picture with one distinct period where human anatomy evolved, and this led to a long slow burn into the eruption of energy extraction, culminating with the industrial revolution which is causing massive changes to the environment. Within that period it's really been the increase of population density and the subsequent improvement of technologies that have driven our history, not our leaders, as you say.

This will likely begin a new, long-term 'post-industrialization' period where human biology makes an adjustment to the new environment, and where hopefully we learn to live sustainably.

This of course is not my idea. The person I think most associated with it is Howard Zinn and his ideas of the common men and women as the true shapers of history.

The brutal and stupid "leaders" mainly get in the way of human progress.

 

[jab]

I've seen some number of leaders who are fundamentally good people, Obama, and now our Trudeau come to mind. I do think, though, that the qualities needed to be a political leader are often at odds with being conscientious and empathetic.

People who are too conscientious and empathetic are often too sensitive to handle the spotlight.

Justin "Selfie" Trudeau is just as vain as he can be. Not too bright either, or particularly conscientious. But polite, and putting on a show of empathy. . . . yeah, I'll give him that.

 

[rousseau]

I've seen some number of leaders who are fundamentally good people, Obama, and now our Trudeau come to mind. I do think, though, that the qualities needed to be a political leader are often at odds with being conscientious and empathetic.

People who are too conscientious and empathetic are often too sensitive to handle the spotlight.

Justin "Selfie" Trudeau is just as vain as he can be. Not too bright either, or particularly conscientious. But polite, and putting on a show of empathy. . . . yeah, I'll give him that.

I'll agree with all of that.

I think he's a good guy, just not very smart.

 

[rousseau]

I just read The Selfish Gene by Dawkin's and it's strangely relevant to this thread.

 

[BH]

I would aslo say that lots of leaders in the past were gamblers. Gamblers who did a good job winning at gambling or doing a even better job spinning the loss when they occur.