Ok, so answer me this this. Was Genghis Khan a good ruler ? He elevated the Mongol people to a position of wealth and power they could never have even dreamed of before he came along. Granted, he was pretty catastrophic for everybody else, but you could make the case that his responsibility as a ruler was to his own people, and by that measure he'd take some beating....

I do not know enough about Genghis Khan to say whether he was good or bad. Now from your description, were the Mongol People suffering/in poverty before he took them over?

Sorry, I meant to say "became their ruler".

hacker

And by the way a lot of people in the US still have military in their families, or know someone as a friend or associate who came home from the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. There's a good reason we still have the GI bill and other measures to help returning veterans

.

I'm not trying to get off topic here Hacker. But I can't help but respond to this, mostly because of how you responded to the evidence preserted in the Atlantic article. The author uses VA data to produce this information...

A total of about 2.5 million Americans, roughly three-quarters of 1 percent, served in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point in the post-9/11 years, many of them more than once.

And you offer a vague "a lot of people".... Do you really think that the 3/4 of 1% of people and their friends and family add up to a significant portion of the public>? (If we say that each veteran touches another 10 people that gets you to less than 10% of the population. )
The GI Bill came into being in 1944 when 10% of Americans were on active duty. (If they each touched another 10 people that means virtually everyone in the US was personally affected.)
It is popular for politicians and and public commentatrs to spout support for those in the armed services.... But the state of the support for veterans in the US (and by the way in Canada to a lesser extent) is appalling. Here's a rabid conservative American commentator on the subject.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... lle-malkin

hacker

No, we can support many foreign interventions because we have the military budget and revenues to do so

well, yes that is another reason. (you'll note that i said "one reason" in my claim.)
However, try and remember why the Viet Namese war became unpopular... There was a draft, 66% of combatants were draftees. There were 60,000 dead, and many more wounded. and plenty of veterans returning complained about the war...
The volunteer army and his family and friends have a wholly different attitude towards war than those who are forced into uniform.

hacker

What does our support of foreign interventions in relation to fewer or greater people being affected by those wars? If there is some connection to the main topic here, I am missing it.

Context. Compare the lost war in Vietnam with the lost war in Iraq. More people affected by Vietnam meant the public reaction to the conflict was far greater. 2/3 of them conscripts.
If it hurts one personally one reacts more... Especially if one didn't volunteer.
http://www.mrfa.org/vnstats.htm

hacker

What does our support of foreign interventions in relation to fewer or greater people being affected by those wars? If there is some connection to the main topic here, I am missing it

Please remember that I support Freemans position.
freeman

A good ruler is one who, through his /her/ its actions, increases the total and median well-being of the people. Well-being encompasses Martha Nussbaum's list of 10 capabilities and anything that makes a person's life better.

So if a leader takes his country into a foreign war, does that make him a good or bad leader.. To put it simply if it benefits few of his citizens and harms many ..... he's done his followers a disservice. BUT In adjudging the the value of a leader who has taken a country into conflict.. It also depends on whether a war is fought defensively or offensively. What the purpose of the war was... And one needs to look at the conflict both from the scope of the time and with the benefit of historical distance.
Take one conflict and try to determine if it was "bad" or "good". Say the Spanish American war which was the advent of American imperialism... Or the Vietnam war, seen in the US as a war against communism and in Vietnam as the last part of a 1,000 year struggle for national independence by the Vietnamese. There are complex and contradictory arguments about both conflicts and the affects on the world of the Spanish American War resonate unto today.

Within the context of his time, Ghengis Khan was a helluva leader for his people. With in the context of history, his accomplishments did little for man kind or the Mongol people.

About the issue of military personnel, I agree with you on some points but not on others. But let's avoid that for the moment and look at the Big Picture.

Genghis Khan I do not know much about. So I'll take your word for it on this occasion.

I know I said I wouldn't sit here and plagiarize Machiavelli, but he does give a rather interesting description of how order was restored to the papal province of the Romagna; a good episode to recount when considering the attributes of a "good" ruler.

[Background: The Romagna was part of what was once the "Patrimony of Peter"; essentially the lands of the former Byzantine Exarchate of Ravenna snaking through central Italy, including Rome, which were supposed to be part of the Papal State and thus governed by the Church. It had however fallen into the hands of local lords and some were even so far gone as to be under the "protection" of neighboring Italian states. Pope Alexander VI, father of Cesare Borgia (whom he had made a cardinal) wanted to restore the Romagna to Church control.]

In 1499 he began hostilities, and by 1501 Cardinal Borgia was made Duke of the Romagna. To restore order and peace in the state he appointed a very cruel minister to run the place, and gave him unlimited executive powers to do so. After his minister's methods were no longer necessary and were proved now more cruel than necessary, the Duke very disingenuously made it look like the fault was not his own, but that of the cruel minister he appointed to run the place, and allowed a tribunal composed of magistrates from each major city to charge his minister with his crimes. The Duke not only had him executed, but he had his body cut in half and displayed in the central square of one of the Romagna's major cities next to a blood-stained knife. Needless to say the People of the Romagna were not only horrified but quite relieved. (One also suspects this shocking act to have been intended to demonstrate to the populace that law and order were still in force in the province, the death of his minister notwithstanding.)

OK, that's some pretty shocking stuff. And it is also quite dishonest, to perform such disingenuous an act, if only to keep any public suspicion of cruelty from sticking to Duke Teflon (even though the Duke had appointed the Minister himself, and allowed him to use any means necessary to restore order, whether cruel or kind). However, since Ricky said that we must take rulers in the context of the times, should we give Cardinal Borgia (aka "Duke Valentino") a pass for his actions?

The following are the ways in which Cesare Borgia was a "good" ruler by invading and seizing the Romagna, and the ways in which he was a "bad" ruler for doing the same (bad first). Some of these do overlap.

Bad Ruler:

cruelty: he appointed a Minister and gave him carte blanche to restore order and peace in the Romagna via any means necessary, with the broadest (and unchecked) executive powers.
disingenuity: pretending to the residents of the Romagna, his own subjects, that he knew nothing about the cruelty and over-reactions of his minister
betrayal: his Minister was only doing what Borgia told him to do anyway...and the Duke/Borgia promptly throws him under a bus for it (er, horse and buggy, whatever...) by allowing him to be executed for following orders
dishonesty: with the above points in mind, he essentially lied to (or withheld the truth from) his Minister and his own subjects
selfishness: one can easily assume that he didn't take over the Romagna because he felt like being a "liberator" rather than a "conquerer", or to "win their hearts & minds". More likely it was a bid for power, for himself and the Church, over which his father presided.

Good Ruler:

better government: he eliminated the government of the province which had been hitherto ruled by dishonest and corrupt lords, replacing them with a government that did not do the same
law and order: he restored law and order, eliminated the brigands and criminals who had virtually taken over the area, terrorizing the people. I think I said somewhere that if you're not free to walk down the street at night without getting raped or shot, do you really have freedom at all?
standard of living: the above mentioned better government may have been harsh for a period of time, but it at least didn't despoil its subjects (goes along with point one).

I'd like to also do a little looking into the Syrian President (formerly the Minister of Defense of Syria who seized power in 1970) Hafiz Assad, whose son is now president of Syria. His 1970 putsch was the last in a game of musical coups that had been going on from 1949 to 1970. (Phun Phact, the first military dictator of the Arab world, Col. Hosni al-Za'im, was actually Kurdish and not "Arab".) Coups in Syria in those 21 years were as regular as the falling of autumn leaves (but considerably noisier) and Hafiz Assad, who died in 2000, managed to hold the state together and maintain political stability. He was a bastard, like Borgia's minister of the Romagna (in fact, he once shelled a whole wayward town into submission to reassure them who was boss if I am not mistaken). But, like Cardinal Borgia, he at least brought stability and internal order to Syria.

Somebody (Ricky?) said that we must look at rulers "in the context" of history. Perhaps that goes for the region of the world as well? Should we keep in context the region of the world and it problems or conditions of stability, as well as the time period?

Perhaps there are many traits to a good ruler, but they may very well have an order of precedence. It may be fruitful to enumerate these levels of a sort of "Pyramid of the Good Ruler"? And keep in mind that there is a difference between Quality of Life and Standard of Living.

And let's put at the very bottom of the pyramid, the ruler or leader can manage to stay in power as long as possible. (After all, if a state starts changing rulers, especially strong ones, as often as we change underwear, it gives little benefit to the citizens,right? Of course, I did say "especially strong ones" in my previous sentence!)

But let's find out about Hafiz Assad first. And why don't we throw in Saddam Hussein, if only for shits and giggles.

P.S., I know what I said about a good ruler "knows when to hold em, and knows when to fold em". However, sometimes you cannot fold em too early. And it is of course very difficult to know, I have to admit, when to do precisely that. As they say on Wall Street: "A bell doesn't ring at the top."

Good Ruler

You have "Standard of Living", which i think is wholly economic. You don't have "Qualities of Life" which would include guarantees of freedom that fall from the creation and growth of liberal institutions that protect and nourish these liberties.
In the context of history its only in the last few hundred years that any political leaders contributed all that much to these aspects of Quality of Life. (Although the initial foundation contributions must not be discounted.)

Most contributions to "Standard of Living" didn't accrue from political leadership but from scientific contributions. Basic sanitation for instance. Although perhaps the political leadership in those areas where the science developed must be given credit for aiding in creating an environment where progress on this level could be achieved and applied to society.

Its interesting that you bring Assad into the ring for inspection and measuring... And mention Col. Hosni al-Za'im. You know Za'im was sponsored by the CIA and he replaced a nascent democracy in Syria? Would that mean Truman gets a mark against him as bad ruler?
And its truly a shame that the US didn't see the development of democracy in Syria from 43 to 49 as a good thing... (Za'im actually was a proponent of liberalization, particularly for women however.)

As for Assad, he has been mostly a "bad ruler" measured against Nussbaums 10 capabilities. (Most despots I think fall into that column.) The context however, is, whats the alternative today? Today the only effective opposition and realistic options are Al Queda or Isis. And I don't know who would be worse for the well being of the Syrian people. Plus we'd have to acknowledge that Syria is a "made up" nation. While Assad has perhaps been a Good Leader for the Alawhites, the majority of Syrians would probably adjudge him as poor. If Isis took over that would be a cruel blow to any but fundamentalist Sunni Muslims .

Interesting point; though mostly I was referring to his father Hafiz, you see. His son may have lost support (I guess a civil war against you is a mark of lost support) but his father had the support of a lot of people, from a lot of different Arab states (who didn't have to live under him, but under some other real SOB like Saddam or the House of Sa'ud) especially because of his criticism of his partner in the October War, Anwar Sadat for making his "separate peace" with Israel.

At least between 1970 and 2000, there was no "merry go round" of governments. Stability under one harsh ruler is at least better than instability under a succession of them, changing fortnightly, and causing confusion, uncertainty and internal chaos. Kind of a choice between "bad" and "worse", right?

You know Za'im was sponsored by the CIA and he replaced a nascent democracy in Syria?

Actually I didn't. I had an Egyptian-born professor of political science at UMBC (his main job was at University of Maryland, so he was an adjunct professor I think is the right way to put it) who said the Za'im coup was a "good coup" because it did lead to some public works projects and an attempt to increase both the quality of life and standard of living of Syrians. But it seems that a nascent democracy would have taken hold in Syria no better than it would now, from what you've said (and others said, about the "artificial states" of the Middle East). Alas, when one military dictator grabs power, it eventually becomes a free-for-all for others to do precisely the same.

I am aware, however, that in 1959 or 1960, the CIA paid a young, arrogant pro-Ba'athist revolutionary to whack General Qassim, the prime minister/dictator of Iraq, that the CIA felt was getting too cozy with the Reds for their own comfort. He failed to kill Qassim, and had to swim across the Tigris to escape Qassim's secret police. As Iraq's head of state, he would repeat the ritual every year...so you obviously know who I am talking about!

So at least Hafiz Assad kept the same government in power. It wasn't until the "arab spring" (a bad name I believe for what is correctly called the "Jasmine Revolution") when Syrians decided that, what worked in Cairo and Tunis could work in Damascus, too; that any thoughts of a rebellion against the hereditary Assad regime were even imaginable. Before that, no one dared lift a finger against the heir to Hafiz Assad.

But Hafiz, good or bad? He had "step one" of the "good ruler" pyramid: stay in power long enough to provide stability. I guess another step of the pyramid (in which ever order this next step should be laid down in the pyramid, whether right above Step one, or higher than that) would be "to keep peace and order". By "peace" of course I mean internal peace and freedom from chaos (gangs, raped/mugged by criminals, etc., freedom from that kind of horror, anarchy I guess is the word I'm looking for) not necessary the absence of war with a foreign power.

Yes, good point about the difference between the two, QOL and SOL. Lot of people do not realize there is a difference.

Within the context of his time, Ghengis Khan was a helluva leader for his people. With in the context of history, his accomplishments did little for man kind or the Mongol people.

His achievements turned the Mongol people from being a rag-arse band of feuding nomads into rulers of the known world with the largest empire ever seen either before or since. I don't see how you can plausibly say that this wasn't to their benefit, even if subsequent Mongol leaders managed to squander that inheritance.

The difficulty of course is that this enormous explosion of success came with an enormous cost, which was millions of deaths (a staggering figure in absolute terms, let alone in relative terms given the populations of the times). So was he a good ruler or not ?

Well you remember my opinion (and Machiavelli's) that misuse of both cruelty *or* kindness is a bad trait in a ruler? I would say that Genghis Khan misused cruelty. I know that he raped the shit out of Baghdad. Iraqis and other Arabic-speaking populations of the Middle East do not consider him one of history's better rulers for that reason. Besides, this rapidly-expanding empire didn't last, did it? Besides, Mongolia is today not exactly one of the better countries in central Asia to live in, as far as both QOL or SOL., isn't it?

Not a good one certainly. Quite possibly I would consider Genghis Khan a bad ruler for the reason of his total misuse of cruelty.

Well yes, of course you would. I'd like to think we all would. I do think his example illustrates the folly of trying to assign objective criteria to this question though. Objectively he was a marvellous ruler for the Mongol people. He brought them wealth, power and reproductive opportunities the like of which they'd never seen before. Consider the number of people who now share genetic heritage with the Mongols. This is a direct result of Genghis and you could hardly get a more fundamental measure of success than that. He was also a horribly cruel and murderous man who spread misery wherever he went, so subjectively we're not going to want to credit him with success.

He brought them wealth, power and reproductive opportunities the like of which they'd never seen before.

"reproductive opportunities"...brilliant, very well-phrased...

He was also a horribly cruel and murderous man who spread misery wherever he went, so subjectively we're not going to want to credit him with success.

Now, why on Earth should misery be subjective?

No just kidding. On the other hand (misery being objective or subjective), I suppose sitting through The Coronation of Poppea (four hours long) is an awesomeand awe-inspiring smorgasbord of sights and sounds for a highbrow opera lover; for those who are not, the Eighth Amendment was just what the doctor ordered.

That said, I think we can objectify this, but to do so we'll have to throw away a few misconceptions, like our "western" tendency (or maybe American tendency?) to think of compassionate leaders as the only possible "good" leader. In fact, Machiavelli faced this by using the word "virtu" I may have mentioned. It might have really meant "virtue" even though the much-underlined and dog eared copy I have translates it as "ability" (but the footnote explains the use of the actual word and why that translator thought that should be the translation into English rather than its cognate, "virtue").

But I think an able leader is a virtuous or "good" one. Americans are often accused or flattered (or both simultaneously) of being "idealists" rather than "realists". By the way is anyone on Redscape from Italy? Just out of curiosity?

Personally guys, I think you can objectify a good leader, to a great extent. But I cannot ignore the fact that yes, to pass judgment on a leader does indeed require a degree of subjective thinking. Also, once we identify what is subjective it makes it a little easier to come to terms with what a good leader ought to be, even if we have to take a certain amount of context, or take that sort of "virtue" with a grain of salt. That grain of salt can be where and when.

Conquest is not a trait of a good leader, or a bad one, necessarily. For example, I did a lot of reading on the Byzantine Empire, back when I could read whole, massive books (I got halfway through Lord Norwich's 1,200 page epic on the subject, from the division of the empire by Diocletian, to the conquest by the Turks in 1453; and I even took a class called Byzantine Civilization). They seem to have had good and bad emperors.

I was considering making a short list of the more notable ones, but that would get too far off topic. And not all of you might have the same background of info on the Byzantines. I studied them more than their predecessor emperors (the Roman Roman Emperors).

I'd write more right now, get a little more in depth, but it's 4:48 a.m. and I'm having trouble focusing via sleep deprivation.

But closing thought, I agree on the subjectivity, but as long as the subjectivity is limited to within time and place, I think that one can proceed to objectify.

I think maybe in defining what is a good ruler we need to distinguish in-groups and out- groups. If all we focus on is what he did for his group of people, then perhaps he was successful. But if we include his effect on the world at large he was pretty awful. So I think it needs to be kept in mind the effect of a leader's actions on other people and not just his own.
Given DNA data indicating that many mongols are descended from a single person with the same mutation in the Y chromosome , I am not sure that Genghis Khan shared his reproductive opportunities that much...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... VIJHAAAgLA

sass

His achievements turned the Mongol people from being a rag-arse band of feuding nomads into rulers of the known world with the largest empire ever seen either before or since. I don't see how you can plausibly say that this wasn't to their benefit, even if subsequent Mongol leaders managed to squander that inheritance

When I said "helluva leader" I meant helluva good leader, for his people. At the time.
I agree with you.

If by "in groups" and "out groups" you mean the leader's own people, and foreigners; I would have to then say that a leader's first duty is to his own people, right?