We got to talking over in another thread about Jimmy Carter and the White House. As the discussion wasn't pertinent to the question at hand, I thought I'd move it over here.

The consensus even among non-partisan academics is still that Carter made a poor president. If a president is supposed to work his will on the Congress, Carter was a failure, since Congress hated him. If a president is supposed to propose budgets that are in some measure accepted by Congress, again, he failed. He couldn't get his agenda accepted, either by the rest of the government, or by the people who elected him.

Before I am torn to shreds by Carter supporters who don't wish to read everything I've written, I should add that I regard Carter as possibly the most ethical president we've seen in the 20th century. He began the release of classified documents relating to secret activities of the CIA in South and Central America, which Clinton continued. He called for the abolition of lobbying junkets, and complete financial disclosure of elected officials to all constituents. (This did not make him popular with either party.) His actions since leaving the White Office have shown him to be among the most successful international arbitrators of all time. Carter could have retired, wealthy and successful, to his Georgian home; instead, he not only continued efforts to seek world peace, but maintains a school devoted to teaching younger members of the diplomatic corps the tools of negotiation.

So what is Carter's position in history, do you think? Let's expand this a little with the following questions:

Can an effective leader also be an extremely moral leader? Or is a leader arguably better when they're ethically slippery?

Does the process of climbing to the political peak of a nation allow one to maintain one's sense of ethics?

And by what standards should we judge the effectiveness of a President? Their national popularity? Their willingess to be very unpopular, and do what they consider right? Their effectiveness at bullying and promising favors to Congress?

Your call, folks. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: fable ]</p>

Can an effective leader also be an extremely moral leader?

Yes, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Rosevelt(sp/) (teddy) come to mind as US presidents, Ghandi, Churchill, as leaders around the world.

Or is a leader arguably better when they're ethically slippery?

Arguably is subjective, Nixon was a good leader, and ethically slippery.

Does the process of climbing to the political peak of a nation allow one to maintain one's sense of ethics?

Yes, see Carter, Washington , Jefferson,etc. Leadership and Ethics are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually inclusive See Carter and Nixon.

And by what standards should we judge the effectiveness of a President? Their national popularity? Their willingess to be very unpopular, and do what they consider right? Their effectiveness at bullying and promising favors to Congress?

All of those are factors in judging the effectivness of a President, as are motoivating the population of people they are leading, reactions in a crisis, abillity to stand up against their nation's enemies, and do the people that they lead have confidence in their leadership.

[/B]

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: John D Harris ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John D Harris:

Can an effective leader also be an extremely moral leader?

Yes, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Rosevelt(sp/) (teddy) come to mind as US presidents, Ghandi, Churchill, as leaders around the world.

Or is a leader arguably better when they're ethically slippery?

Arguably is subjective, Nixon was a good leader, and ethically slippery.

Does the process of climbing to the political peak of a nation allow one to maintain one's sense of ethics?

Yes, see Carter, Washington , Jefferson,etc. Leadership and Ethics are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually inclusive See Carter and Nixon.

And by what standards should we judge the effectiveness of a President? Their national popularity? Their willingess to be very unpopular, and do what they consider right? Their effectiveness at bullying and promising favors to Congress?

All of those are factors in judging the effectivness of a President, as are motoivating the population of people they are leading, reactions in a crisis, abillity to stand up against their nation's enemies, and do the people that they lead have confidence in their leadership.



[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: John D Harris ][/b]<hr></blockquote>

Churchill!!! You think Churchill was a moral leader? This is the man who threatened a vote of no confidence to stop equal pay for women, advocated enforced sterilisation of the handicapped, and started the process of deliberately bombing women and children in the second world war. He also changed party at least three times in his parliamentary career, serving in a liberal and a conservative cabinet at different points of his life. He was a brilliant leader of men but he was quite definately without any kind of moral guidance whatsoever.

I think in fact that that highlights the problem we have, we view an ethical leader and an effective leader as inextricably linked. I would say that more often than not they turn out to be exclusive of each other. If we look at examples of British politics (just to humour me...) then most people with strong ethical guidance are sidelined. As Virginia Bottomley said: "In this business you walk a fine line between being popular and being principled,". The "barmy army" of Eurosceptic MPs in the early nineties had the whip withdrawn from them for their principles. In british politics this virtually gaurantees that your career is over.

About the only British leader who succesfully enacted strong principles was Margeret Thatcher (and I disagree strongly with those principles, but she had them nonetheless...). But arguably she had to suppress those principles until she had become completely dogmatic in government towards the end of her third term. It wasn't unitl 1988 that she attempted to instate the poll tax, possibly the most unpopular, yet strongly principled, piece of legislation we have seen since the second world war. So whilst Thatcher had principles in order to become leader and maintain the position she had to effectively hide them, or at least not let them be fully discovered.

Basically I think it is difficult, but not impossible to be an ethically principled leader. The political system of this country at least does not help.

A war and killing an enemy is what makes a good leader

If you look back, people who are well remembered for doing great things for the country are those who were involved in wars or battles.

Churchill is a good example for UK....world war 2 bla bla
But as posted above about Churchill he is far far from perfect and defintely not someone I'd want in control of Britain.

I'm sure its a similar thing for USA, I dunno who those guys are other than names I've seen.
Bush is gonna be remembered cos he started war on Islam and as long as it doesnt get us all killed he will be thought of as a good leader

People seem to forget all the bad things and problems with the country that never got solved.
Human Nature still likes war and death in some way

Uh, Tarox? *waves hand in front of Tarox's face*

Bush didn't start a war on Islam, if anything he started a war on terrorism. Big difference.

Sheesh - so this is how misconceptions get into the world... [img]redface.gif[/img] :eek:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Melusine:
Uh, Tarox? *waves hand in front of Tarox's face*

Bush didn't start a war on Islam, if anything he started a war on terrorism. Big difference.

Sheesh - so this is how misconceptions get into the world... [img]redface.gif[/img] :eek: <hr></blockquote>


So true!

Maybe you should speak to some Islamic people and ask what they "really" think

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tarox:
Maybe you should speak to some Islamic people and ask what they "really" think<hr></blockquote>

Maybe you should get your facts straight.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tarox:
Maybe you should speak to some Islamic people and ask what they "really" think<hr></blockquote>

What they think is just a irrelevent as what we think. The only truths are the facts. Funny thing about the facts is that neither side can put them on the table objectivelly.

Oh, and by the way, war and killing doesn't make a good leader. Preventing war and preventing killing is what makes a good leader. The object of leadership is to get things done at a minimal price and with minimal disturbance on the system. The loss of life is a huge price and war is a huge disturbance.

In essence, any leader that causes war (note the "causes", not "is at war" as there is a big difference between the 2) is a poor leader!

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tarox:
Maybe you should speak to some Islamic people and ask what they "really" think<hr></blockquote>

I have....and they think the terrorists shame Islam and wish much harsher punishments than they see the prisoners receiving in Camp X-Ray. Of course, I don't know all the Muslims in my area and I'm sure you don't know all the Muslims in your area, but just like any other group they will have varying opinions.