Anwar Sadat was considered by his people to be a traitor, a horrible person, to the extent that they assassinated him.  However, look what he did - he was the first to sign a peace treaty with Israel.

Henry Ford was a known anti-Semite who played footsies with the Nazis, yet he built a huge industry.

Netanyahu is despised by many people not only abroad but in his own country, the subject of criminal investigations, yet it cannot be denied that he is a strong leader who has kept his country's citizens safe from the surrounding countries who want, and have stated so, to wipe Israel off the map.

What doesn't glitter in your eyes, could turn out to be gold.

John Lennon urged the world to "Give Peace a Chance".  Obama followed his advice.  It hasn't worked.  So perhaps it's time to get tough.  "When the going gets tough, the tough get going."

So perhaps it's time to get tough.  "When the going gets tough, the tough get going."

So you believe another world war needs to be fought?  Why?  What are we fighting over this time?  Oil?  Gold?  Diamonds?  Other resources?  Ownership of countries divvied up like properties on a Monopoly board?

How many tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of women and children in the "wrong" countries need to die this time in order to establish "world order" to the satisfaction of the empire builders?

I do not think that is what he meant mcg.

So you believe another world war needs to be fought?  Why?  What are we fighting over this time?  Oil?  Gold?  Diamonds?  Other resources?  Ownership of countries divvied up like properties on a Monopoly board?

To prove we are the big dogs on the block. To lift our leg and to piss on other countries and for no other reason. That's why Bolton and Trump want to launch "preemptive strikes" on North Korea and Iran, even those are two of the most stupid fucking ideas in modern history. Just to prove how tough we are because they expect it will make them cower, when really it will just lead to massive wars in both cases where hundreds of thousands of human beings will die, tens of thousands of them Americans. Besides we do NOT have a standing army to fight one of the wars, let alone two of them. We don't have enough kids to throw into the meat grinders without a draft.

War with either country is the absolutely last thing we should be doing when North Korea is now willing to talk and considering that  the one nation in the Middle-East whose PEOPLE want to be Westernized the most is Iran. A war with either or both would be throwing away chances to change their regimes without American bloodshed. It would be ignorant warmongering to no good end. It would be the act of people with the IQ mentality of about 85.

And you are right, TiG, because she is wrong. The point is that I think it is time to change directions - and the ingredients seem to be there now. Nobody wants another World War, so maybe some new direction is required to PREVENT one. Maybe it takes different protagonists and different methods to reach what has been unreachable now for decades.

"North Korea is now willing to talk"

And why is that, Randy?

I honestly don't know, but my personal feeling is that now that they have their nuclear program up and ready to the point where they feel they have ICBMs that can reach most American targets in the far East and perhaps in the West coast of the US they feel comfortable in their security and feel they will be thought of as a major power by having direct talks with the American President. I believe that Kim Jung Un feels that the talks with Trump will raise him and North Korea to the status of a superpower and that he is finally dealing from a position of strength.

I also have no doubt that if Trump is going there to try to get them to give up their nuclear weapons or to freeze their program he is on a fools errand. I can not see any possible circumstances that they will ever go back now. I know I wouldn't if I were them.

Maybe it takes different protagonists and different methods to reach what has been unreachable now for decades.

So exactly what are you proposing?

More threats and no action to back them?

I'm not proposing anything, I'm asking whether a change of technique might lead to better results.

And of course Adolph Hitler-- one of the baddest people in recent history-- but of course he was a wonderful leader!

And of course Stalin (I read that he killed many more people than even Hitler did-- so I suppose that by the standards used in this article-- while Hitler was one of the best leaders in history-- Stalin was an even better leader than he was!

Many in China revere Mao even to this day.

You're comparing Jobs and the Clintons to Hitler and Stalin?  I think your comparisons are extreme - You cannot compare present day leaders in civilized western countries, even if they're bad, to Hitler and Stalin.  I have used examples such as Sadat, Ford and Netanyahu, not butchers. Take things to the extreme and you can turn to shit anything that anybody has to contribute.

Most successful business owners have the ability to be a dictator and a jerk, it takes to much time and energy to listen to everyone's point of view or worry about their feelings so they have a advantage over any competition that doesn't. It's that way with Political Leaders too, of course as they say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely so it should be no surprise that Leaders who attained absolute dictatorial power turned into Monsters. Give Jobs or the Clintons absolute power unfettered by Laws and no doubt they would end up just like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. Show me one that didn't. Once there is a King the King often has to kill his rivals to keep from being killed/replaced and then there's a snowball effect to goes from killing his rivals to anyone who supported his rivals to anyone who speaks against his policies to anyone who isn't waving his flag and chanting his name.

Maybe in English history the monarchy could fit your description, but not for a long time.

Among despicable persons, he could be number 1, but it cannot be denied that Hitler was a charismatic and effective leader.

And a malignant narcissist, a racist, antisemitic, a sociopath, a psychopath and dangerously delusional. So I would argue that they can not be the best leaders as calling them the best would imply that they would also have compassion and caring for the people that they rule. That they would be fair and just.  I suppose you could say that bad people make the most effective leaders, by some definition of effectiveness, but certainly not the best by any definition.

but it cannot be denied that Hitler was a charismatic and effective leader.

Like a pied piper leading rats off the edge of a cliff and then jumping off himself. While I can understand the premise of the seeded articles author, I disagree that all "effective leaders" are a good thing. Hitler was effective at getting himself and his people cornered and destroyed.

"When will we admit it? Effective leaders are less like Santa Claus handing out gifts, less like Mother Teresa blessing sick people, and more like Kobe Bryant coolly sticking a dagger into the heart of an opponent as he drops a three-point buzzer beater to win a tight game."

This example from the article was just plain ignorant. He uses one example of a fictional good person who supposedly does the impossible by delivering toys to all children on a single night which has got to take some stellar leadership, and one of a real person who was a great leader in her own right, setting the example and inspiring millions, then compares them to a supposedly "bad" person who is simply a good basketball player playing by the rules and hitting a great 3 point shot to win a game. If he wanted to use a basketball player analogy of "bad" why not insert someone like John Stockton flopping from a non-touch to get an undeserved free throw?

"these leaders’ legacies are always more complicated than we pretend. There are disappointments and hurt feelings and near-disasters along the way. Indeed, big-time leaders usually need a certain amount of luck to retire with their reputations intact."

Not only are there "near disasters", there are total disasters, sometimes electing a "bad person" get's you only bad results. The fact that "big-time" leaders need a certain amount of luck to retire with intact reputations accepts the fact that often these leaders end their careers in cuffs or worse, so claiming "bad people" make "good leaders" isn't actually true. It would be more honest to say "Some bad people ended up being good leaders, but most ended up being being both bad people and bad leaders."

Effective leaders are those who are willing to do what is required .   Doing what is required literally takes one into some damn awful actions.   The best leaders are those who can forego some of their aspirations for moral reasons - the truly best operate altruistically (rare).   The most effective leaders, like Stalin or Hitler, for example, had no moral compass and pulled out all of the stops.

This is also an argument against totalitarianism (as if one needed to be made).

Good topic Buzz (or Buzzy).   

By “best leaders,” I’m talking mainly about people who consistently show the ability to get things done...

is not quite the same as

Effective leaders are those who are willing to do what is required.

Both definitions ignore the critical subject of how/who decides "what is required".

It seems to me that a good leader is one who brings his followers to do what is right. If efficacy is the yardstick, then (as Krishna said), we must acknowledge Hitler as a good leader. I reject any definition that takes us there.

(I agree that it's a good subject for debate.)

It seems to me that a good leader is one who brings his followers to do what is right. If efficacy is the yardstick, then (as Krishna said), we must acknowledge Hitler as a good leader. I reject any definition that takes us there.

So what is your interpretation of this?:

TiG   @ 3 -  The  best   leaders are those who can forego some of their aspirations for moral reasons - the truly  best  operate altruistically (rare).   The  most effective   leaders, like Stalin or Hitler, for example, had no moral compass and pulled out all of the stops.

I was underscoring the semantic problem of the meaning of "good". It is essentially meaningless without criteria. A placeholder for criteria that too often are never explicit.

We do this all the time: "George is a good driver." Meaningless.

In this context, 'good' means 'moral' and 'effective' means 'good at achieving objectives'.

Yes I know that 'moral' needs definition too but we could chase semantics forever.

I guess I'm not making myself clear... as usual...

I doubt that the author is unaware of what he is doing. He is operating a classic bait-and-switch, gliding seamlessly from "good" to "effective", attempting to blur the two ideas in the minds of his readers.

But ultimately to build a good leader, you perhaps have to build on a foundation of “bad” qualities—that classic nasty competitive streak, excessive risk-taking, dangerous stubbornness and so on.

Bad is good!

Effective leaders are those who are willing to do what is required.   Doing what is required literally takes one into some damn awful actions.   The best leaders are those who can forego some of their aspirations for moral reasons - the truly best operate altruistically (rare).   The most effective leaders, like Stalin or Hitler, for example, had no moral compass and pulled out all of the stops.

An excellent summation, although I am hard pressed to come up with an altruistic example (they are that rare I suppose).

Andrew Carnegie comes to mind.   Note, no human being is perfect so altruism is relative.

Andrew Carnegie comes to mind.

Why?  Carnegie was a winner take all capitalist whose "charitable" contributions do not overshadow his mistreatment of the men who worked for him.

en.wikipedia

Andrew Carnegie's political and economic focus during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was the defense of laissez faire economics. Carnegie emphatically resisted government intrusion in commerce, as well as government-sponsored charities. Carnegie believed the concentration of capital was essential for societal progress and should be encouraged. ^[86]  Carnegie was an ardent supporter of commercial "survival of the fittest" and sought to attain immunity from business challenges by dominating all phases of the steel manufacturing procedure. ^[87]  Carnegie's determination to lower costs included cutting labor expenses as well. ^[88]  In a notably Spencerian manner, Carnegie argued that unions impeded the natural reduction of prices by pushing up costs, which blocked evolutionary progress. ^[89]  Carnegie felt that unions represented the narrow interest of the few while his actions benefited the entire community. ^[87]

Carnegie built his wealth in the steel industry by maintaining an extensively integrated operating system. Carnegie also bought out some regional competitors, and merged with others, usually maintaining the majority shares in the companies. Over the course of twenty years, Carnegie's steel properties grew to include the Edgar Thomson Steel Works, the Lucy Furnace Works, the Union Iron Mills, the Homestead Works, the Keystone Bridge Works, the Hartman Steel Works, the Frick Coke Company, and the Scotia ore mines among many other industry related assets. ^[92]   Furthermore, Carnegie's success was due to his convenient relationship with the railroad industries, which not only relied on steel for track, but were also making money from steel transport. The steel and railroad barons worked closely to negotiate prices instead of free market competition determinations. ^[93]

Besides Carnegie's market manipulation, United States trade tariffs were also working in favor of the steel industry. Carnegie spent energy and resources lobbying congress for a continuation of favorable tariffs from which he earned millions of dollars a year. ^[94]   Carnegie tried to keep this information concealed, but legal documents released in 1900, during proceedings with the ex-chairman of Carnegie Steel, Henry Clay Frick, revealed how favorable the tariffs had been. ^[95]   Herbert Spencer absolutely was against government interference in business in the form of regulatory limitation, taxes, and tariffs as well. Spencer saw tariffs as a form of taxation that levied against the majority in service to "the benefit of a small minority of manufacturers and artisans". ^[96]

Spencer remarked upon his first visit to Carnegie's steel mills in Pittsburgh, which Carnegie saw as the manifestation of Spencer's philosophy, "Six months' residence here would justify suicide." ^[97]

Why? 

Andrew Carnegie may be the most influential philanthropist in American history. The scale of his giving is almost without peer: adjusted for inflation, his donations exceed those of virtually everyone else in the nation’s history. The magnitude of his accomplishments is likewise historic: he built some 2,811 lending libraries around the globe, founded what became one of the world’s great research universities, endowed one of the nation’s most significant grantmakers, and established charitable organizations that are still active nearly a century after his death. And, perhaps uniquely among businessmen, the quality of his writing has ensured that his thoughts on philanthropy have been continuously in print for more than a century, and remain widely read and studied to this day.

TiG   @ 3.2.1    -  Andrew Carnegie comes to mind.   Note, no human being is perfect so altruism is relative .

Once he accumulated his money, consider what he did with it:

So as long as the slave owner uses  his wealth to help the people of his choosing at the end of his life,  we should ignore how he acquired the wealth and the lifestyle it afforded him throughout his lifetime?

I don't agree.

Noted.   

There is a saying that I heard in class in High School that went "When a King has the best interests of his people at heart, then a Monarchy is by far the very the best form of government of all. When he does not, then it is by far the absolutely worst of all kinds."

I guess it's a matter of effectiveness and best interests and if a leader has a combination of the two and in what proportions or if they are just effective without having any of the interests of the people they are ruling at heart.

Benevolent Despot perhaps, the rub is ensuring they remain benevolent.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely?

So they say

There is a saying that I heard in class in High School that went "When a King has the best interests of his people at heart, then a Monarchy is by far the very the best form of government of all. When he does not, then it is by far the absolutely worst of all kinds."

Nice Randy. 

My dad used the same start for some of our discussions but his version was, "The Very Best form of government is the Benevolent Dictatorship".

From there we'd kick around all the reasons why, human nature being what it is, a B.D. just can't work for very long or in groups much larger than a family or, perhaps, up to a small village.

I had another Emily Latilla moment by trying to read the seed without my glasses.  I see now that the title is BAD PEOPLE not BALD PEOPLE.  So.....never mind.

LOL

I'm the LAST person to disparage bald people.