Also, I am trying to think of a western leader, a U.S. president perhaps, who was a good ruler and one who was a bad one, by the standards I've brought up so far.

However, the standard for a "western" leader of the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries will involve a much higher "hurdle" than those of Genghis Khan, I'll wager. That's the problem. Like I said, I do believe we can look at this objectively, but not entirely: some subjective points of view need to be taken into account.

George Washington is often canonized by the American body politic. And for good reason; I'll wager that if we took *his* traits and examined them, we can find a better leader there than some of his successors. Ditto with Lincoln.

Both of these men lived before the concept of a welfare state and government involvement in increasing the standard of living of its own people. (Will write more later on them.)

hacker

Both of these men lived before the concept of a welfare state and government involvement in increasing the standard of living of its own people.

I don't think this actually true. England had the Poor laws, and took care of the poor at the parsih level. There were all kinds of similar laws and social efforts across Europe. It is true that the American Founding Fathers didn't support the notion of helping the poor that much. Though Adam Smith did support the idea of free education for the children of the very poor.

However it should also be noted that Washington's standing army was made primarily of single poor men, usually new immigrants. The US was largely agrarian and married men with farms could not leave their farms, for the most part. And Washington fought for veterans benefits because so many of the standing army were abjectly poor after the war ended.

Having said that. if you look at Washington objectively, you'd have to say that he failed on a lot of levels.. Our objective ruler being ...

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.

Who did he fail? Blacks. He did nothing about the institution of slavery. (Pennsylvania became the first state to out law slavery only in 1780). Women. Nothing much was advanced in terms of rights or protections for women in his term. The poor. (Other than veterans). In terms of income inequality, the period was one of enormous concentration in the top elite.

In the context of the times, Washington was an enormous success as a President. Mainly because he marshaled in the federal system that succeeded in forging a successful nation where the confederacy that preceded it was falling apart.

In the context of the times,

That's exactly right, Ricky: in the context of his times. I think you were the one who proposed that argument. (Or was it Sassenach?) Why WOULD a leader back then have abolished slavery or given women the vote? The Swiss federal government didn't do it until 1971, I might add (though they could hitherto vote in canton-elections in several cantons since 1959). There was no way in hell he could have *possibly* done either, even if he attempted it. And why would he even dared to have attempted it? The "times" we are talking about are April 30, 1789 to March 4, 1797. Women themselves wouldn't have taken such a leader seriously, during those particular 7 years and 10 months. However, he did free all of his own slaves, something a lot of the more liberal Virginia slaveholders did at the time believe it or not (until the cotton gin was invented). And not to get off topic but Jefferson did not show his own slaves the same generosity (and expanded federal and presidential power far more than Washington would have dared I might add).

Besides, Genghis Khan didn't meet the criteria of Martha Nussbaum did he? I venture to believe a lot of leaders we might consider good or at least half-decent might not.

Well, good for England, and, if I remember correctly, Parliament didn't really care enough to fund inspectors of these poor houses and so forth at the time, so they were quite shitty compared to today's "council housing", I think it's called, (if I remember correctly). And it certainly sounds like a nice thing to do for their standard of living to be sure. However, even the most liberal leader in Parliament at the time didn't care to share their closely-held privilege to vote with said poor people until the Reform Acts began to expand the electorate, starting in 1832 (if again I remember correctly). I believe I got into a bit of trouble about a tighter electorate in another thread...so I cannot call the poor houses a very liberal act. More like "papering over" the problem. If you don't believe me, just ask Charles Dickens. Not trying to compare who's country is better, please do not misunderstand me. Just saying that that wasn't the sort of thing that was thought about much at the time which resulted in any *serious* solutions, anywhere that I'm aware of.

Secondly, in The Republic Plato postulates that the best leader is the one who did not want the job in the first place. If rule no. 1 is "to stay in power long enough to ensure stability, and not to quit too soon or too late", then perhaps rule no. 2 is that "the ruler didn't want the job in the first place." While Washington did not publicly protest when it was obvious who would end up getting the job should the new constitution be ratified, [himself] he took no joy in having it and was quoted before and after election that he had no interest in the presidency whatsoever. And he really did not. So could that be another good ruler trait? (Took the job reluctantly, or was forced into it?)

In terms of income inequality, the period was one of enormous concentration in the top elite.

I wanted to point out also, about income equality, even if it's slightly off topic. In the very very beginning of the industrial revolution, prior to the "capitalism" phase, a lot of stuff was still made via cottage industry. These people owned their own "means of production" so to speak. The income was nowhere near as unequal as it probably is today, compared to 1789-ish.

hacker

Why WOULD a leader back then have abolished slavery?

Because it was the moral thing to do? (If we eliminate context but judge each leader on his contribution to human development, then isn't his unwillingness to tackle this issue a major failing?)

There was a strong movement,driven by the Great Awakening, to abolish slavery in revolutionary period America.

The 1777 Constitution of the Vermont Republic banned slavery, freeing males over the age of 21 and women over the age of 18. Pennsylvania in 1780 passed An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, which declared all children born after the act to be free, and Massachusetts, via the Quock Walker Case of 1783, immediately ended slavery in the state. In response to the British offer of freedom for slaves owned by rebel masters, tens of thousands of slaves who were owned by Rebel masters tried to enlist in the British army when it controlled an area. For instance, in South Carolina, nearly 25,000 slaves (30% of the total enslaved population) fled, migrated or died during the disruption of the war. Throughout the South, losses of slaves were high, with many due to escapes.[27] Slaves escaped throughout New England and the mid-Atlantic, joining the British who had occupied New York. In the closing months of the war, the British evacuated 20,000 freedmen from major coastal cities, transporting more than 3,000 for resettlement in Nova Scotia, with others taken to the Caribbean islands, and some to England.

Washington would have considerable support if he had moved to abolish slavery. Although difficult it wasn't an impossibility. Besides the moral argument he had the military one.... The slaves were escaping and enlisting with the British.

hacker

The income was nowhere near as unequal as it probably is today, compared to 1789-ish.

You're right. I was wrong and thinking of land owners in Europe...

We are, of course, a much richer and better off nation today than 240 years ago. In the 1770s, America was a heavily agrarian country of yeoman farmers, merchants, and tradesmen, with an economy that accounted to just a few billion dollars in present values. Like modern India or Russia, both of which technically enjoy more income equality than the United States, early Americans were relatively poor compared to us. They were just relatively poor together.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... 74/262537/

Washington would have considerable support if he had moved to abolish slavery. Although difficult it wasn't an impossibility. Besides the moral argument he had the military one.... The slaves were escaping and enlisting with the British.

No he would not have. If one reads (if you feel like it) Founding Brothers one finds that the "Quaker Petitions"---two different petitions arriving on two different days from mostly Quaker citizens of the United States, particularly in Pennsylvania---were treated with contempt, even by northern congressmen, when received by the Senate and House of Representatives during the 1st Congress. The first was easily dealt with by "assigning it to committee for further study" (e.g., kill it). The second petition was NOT so easily killed...because it was countersigned by Ben Franklin, one of the "gods" in the "American Revolutionary Pantheon" second only to Washington himself (as Ellis puts it). Basically, these petitions call for an end to the slave trade, which the constitution of 1787 clearly states, cannot be altered or abolished before the year 1808. In other words, the international slave trade was protected for exactly two decades (though a tax of no greater than $10 per slave, probably a shitload of money back then, could be levied on it at any time). This was a necessary "compromise" between northern states, where slavery was dying, and southern states, where it either wasn't, or was in the very least taking its dear, sweet time to do so. The petition with Franklin's signature on it caused absolute uproar and damn near split the congress at the exact moment Americans would not have wanted it to.

That should tell you right there that No, Washington would not have had support enough to do it. Even to try it would have been a fool's errand, and any talk of it whatsoever above the level of a not-so-serious whisper would have destroyed the nascent Republic right then and there. I hate to make excuses for what is immoral, but it's true.

Funny enough, the Great Awakening didn't quite catch on everywhere. It was present in the southern states, but gee what do ya know, not as popular as it was in the North. And the traveling preachers probably had to hedge their language a little bit in the south.

Look at a map of the early United States, or the 1790 census, and you will see why. And not only is George Washington FROM Virginia, it just so happens to be the state with the largest number of Congressmen (10) and therefore electoral votes (12). Vermont I think got one congressmen when it was admitted to the Union in 1790

Some slaves did enlist in the Continental Army, thinking they'd get their freedom for serving (though I'm sure in most cases, the phrase "April Fools!" comes to mind).

And if all these slaves are escaping, well, don't you think their masters would have been terribly happy, especially in states where slaves were more integrated into the economy (cash crops: tobacco, cotton, etc.). Believe me, from where you're sitting it looks simple, because cotton cannot grow in Canada. One wonders when Parliament (British) would have finally outlawed slavery had the thirteen American colonies not been lost. Maybe the same time we ended up outlawing it? Likely. But that's another can of worms...and I seem to have lost my can opener.

I cannot give you perfect evidence I admit. But look at what's in the constitution: they demanded to count 3/5 of their slaves, 20 year prohibition on Congress outlawing the external slave trade, governors having the power to issue warrants to seize escaped slaves and return them to their "rightful owners", and basically leaving the rest up to state law. One quite read-through of the US constitution during Washington's presidency (meaning, only the 11 amendments at the time) should give you an idea that if these compromises had not been reached, there's no way in hell he could have done it without southerners and at least some northern congressmen joining hands to move for his impeachment.

Oh yeah, and the actual fact that it took four years of internecine warfare, costing a mind-boggling amount of American lives, in order to force its abolition on the 11 wayward states (not to mention, Lincoln himself had a pretty hard time selling it to the remaining states' members of Congress) should tell you something. Watch the movie Lincoln and you'll see what I mean.

You can quote any source you want, but taking the Constitution's language as well as the very fact of the American Civil War and its political aftermath and what's that add up to? Certainly not a smash and grab job to end slavery in the 1790's, even if it was George Washington.

But let's debate leaders not slavery PLEASE. Though I think your position of using it as argument for why Washington wasn't a "good" ruler is untrue, but still a fairly valid point I suppose (in other words, a nice enough argument in that it alleges truth, but the evidence is against it almost totally).

Millard Fillmore?

No just kidding.

John Adams wasn't bad. But I think Jefferson, for all his good qualities and deeds, deserves at least some censure for a measure of hypocrisy in some cases.

But what about Mikhail Gorbachev? Or Sadat? or Nasser? (or King Farouk if you want to bring out the baddies.)

hacker

But let's debate leaders not slavery PLEASE. Though I think your position of using it as argument for why Washington wasn't a "good" ruler is untrue, but still a fairly valid point I suppose (in other words, a nice enough argument in that it alleges truth, but the evidence is against it almost totally)

.
If we agree that

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

how can one ignore slavery? It affects not only those enslaved, but those who keep others enslaved.
Ben Franklin tried to lead on the issue of slavery.
George Washington did not.
This makes Washington a failure as a leader.
Within the context of his times, it is understandable that he chose the imperfect (slavery till 1808) compromise over the morally courageous and right thing... ending slavery. But, objectively, measured against our metric, it still makes him less than the perfect leader.

Have a go at Gorbachev...

Um, actually Ricky that was your position not mine; the 10 capabilities of Martha Nussbaum. If you are going to take the position (which I think you took, right?) that we need to take context into account, then you cannot have it both ways. Um, Washington did not likely "choose" the compromise. He was in the chair at the convention, I'm pretty sure he didn't take the floor as a regular delegate (at least you're not supposed to do that when you're in the chair, like John Adams did when he proposed to the assembled senators his great idea for some new titles for the presidency). Washington is not the father of the Constitution according to historians; that dignified title goes to James Madison.

I agree that slavery is a bad thing. But again, you yourself argued for context of the times, didn't you? You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

But speaking of eating cake...no let's stick with Mikhail Sergeivitch Gorbachev, President of the USSR and General Secretary of the CPSU.

He had some good ideas, Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring). There was a lot done by Gorbachev that he didn't plan on doing but he did anyway. Rulers are usually judged by what they did and not by what they had intended to do but at least tried. That's probably all right for Gorbachev, because he probably had no intentions of turning the USSR into a democracy, or making peace with the western bloc and pulling out of eastern Europe. His concern, I read, was to bring "transparency" to the Politburo and the other inner circles of the Soviet Communist Party and government machinery. Not to open the floodgates to something he could not control.

Glasnost was effectively reversed by the presidents of most of the 15 former Soviet Socialist Republics once they became independent states. I seem to remember Boris Yeltsin ordering tanks to actually fire on Parliament (they call it the White House) during the 1993 coup, and after that, Russians approved a new constitution, approved first by Yeltsin himself. Eduard Shevernadze, former Foreign Minister of the USSR and President of post-Soviet Georgia (dumped in a Tahrir-square style popular uprising). And this is the same man who came up with the "Sinatra Doctrine". Belarus is under a ruthless dictatorship, as are the five transcaspian republics. Ukraine and the Baltics are the only remaining democratic former SSR's, and the former took another popular uprising or coup to get that way; how long Ukraine will remain free and intact is anybody's guess. 4 out of 15...not a very good batting average democracy-wise.

It's rather an open question as to whether Gorbachev could have arrested the disintegration of the USSR, in the process making the August 1991 coup unnecessary. But he didn't: the Soviet Union did disintegrate. And before anyone raises the objection that the USSR was doomed thanks to its economic and social problems, I may carefully remind them that far more chaotic regimes than that have stayed in power for years. And far better ones have collapsed (though few without the help of the CIA.)

Yet we must charge him with the fact that he did not keep his own state from collapsing. Americans see the disintegration of the USSR as this great victory for democracy. But if you were a citizen of the 15 former SSR's, is it? Probably not. It may have been better for the peoples of the USSR (except perhaps the Baltic states) if it had stayed intact. And if that is the case, how can I consider Gorbachev a good leader? He failed to ensure his own country's survival. How long the charade of Communism could have been kept up is anybody's guess. But North Korea still survives, right? And their economy is far more screwed up than the USSR's in 1990. If he were the leader of a corporation, and let his company go under, he'd never get a job in business again, that didn't involve asking if you'd like fries with that. On the other hand, he might have done the best with what he had to work with.

My verdict: poor leader. He was wily enough to climb to the top ranks of the CPSU only long enough to let it collapse, or at least not be able to prevent it from doing precisely that. And how can you be a communist and a reformer at the same time? That might be a black and white way of looking at it, but everybody else was choosing sides at the time, weren't they? Certainly the people who deposed him (temporarily) chose a side.

hacker

Um, actually Ricky that was your position not mine; the 10 capabilities of Martha Nussbaum

.
I missed your cogent argument against this then?

Hacker

If you are going to take the position (which I think you took, right?) that we need to take context into account, then you cannot have it both ways

I think you can. which is why I said...

Having said that. if you look at Washington objectively, you'd have to say that he failed on a lot of levels.. Our objective ruler being .

..
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..

In the context of the times, Washington was an enormous success as a President. Mainly because he marshaled in the federal system that succeeded in forging a successful nation where the confederacy that preceded it was falling apart

.

Washington took no stand against slavery. Neither did many founding fathers of the US. And the majority made it part of the Constitution. I don't think that, regardless of the context, that this should be ignored. Its part of the package.
Canonizing men for one achievement, whilst ignoring their failings on issues of basic morality, does not provide a clear picture of them or their society.

Hacker

He failed to ensure his own country's survival

.
Gorbachev is a Russian.
The Soviet was an empire that included other nation states. Russia survived the collapse of the Communist Empire.
What did Gorbachev accomplish for the development of the Russian people?

A good ruler is one who, through his /her/ its actions, increases the total and median well-being of the people.

That may be one definition Ricky but my position is that there are different kinds of well being. In some countries, the best that can be said of a ruler is that he managed to keep order. Bread, Land and Peace sounds great, but sometimes the best you can hope for is internal peace (order). FDR did not manage to get the country out of the depression for example: economists are in general of the opinion that only World War II did that which Roosevelt didn't start (though he did make early attempts for the United States to enter the war, he couldn't really go all out until we attacked directly).

Gorbachev was Russian, yes, but he was General Secretary (later "president") of the USSR. That encompasses many different nationalities even if his own was Russian. And I do not think he accomplished much for Russia or for any other Soviet nationalities. As I understood it the Soviet Union (soviet meaning "council") was a union of several different socialist republics that existed at the end of the Russian civil war, encompassing territory of the old Russian Empire. Lenin reunified the territory under socialist rule by creating a union of these republics under one roof (hence, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

And fine about Washington. Though in his papers, he did actually talk differently about those of african descent differently than some of the other founding fathers. He alone stated that we would be equal, if given the same educational opportunity. No one else at the time made that made so bold a statement, even those who professed to support emancipation.

And he never would have been able to hold the country together, and attempt to abolish slavery. Doesn't it say anything to you that the abolition of slavery never came about until emancipation was imposed on the south by military force? You have a rather absolutist way of looking at history. It's better to take the Big Picture into account, and that often requires taking into account that historical figures may have had values different than your own, which aren't necessarily invalid.

hacker

You have a rather absolutist way of looking at history. It's better to take the Big Picture into account, and that often requires taking into account that historical figures may have had values different than your own, which aren't necessarily invalid.

Well, Hacker, since I've repeatedly said that leaders have to judged both in the context of their times and against absolute standards, i don't know why you say this..

Do you not believe that absolute moral standards exist?
If the concept of slavery is evil today, was evil in 1865, was it not evil in 1780?

hacker

Doesn't it say anything to you that the abolition of slavery never came about until emancipation was imposed on the south by military force?

It makes the man Lincoln ever more impressive. That the evil of slavery prospered under the new American Constitution and became further entrenched, beyond the initial 1808 deadline ... is a sustained moral failure. Every leader from Washington on that failed to confront and end the evil failed in that great moral question.
Agree or not?

Well, Hacker, since I've repeatedly said that leaders have to judged both in the context of their times and against absolute standards, i don't know why you say this..

I say this because you keep saying that you believe it but you do not carry out your intent. Here you are saying Washington was a terrible leader because he didn't confront the issue of slavery. In the context of his times, it would have been impossible for him, and even many of his successors, to end it. But in an absolute moral sense, slavery is wrong. Of course I believe it's wrong! But I have to be a realist and accept the fact that you cannot always get what you want, even if it's something moral, when you're a national leader. And if we are taking into account the times, by the way, the Presidency was a far weaker branch of government than Congress at this time. Washington was not an all-powerful dictator-god.

You're doing what George Orwell called doublethink: holding two simultaneously contradictory ideas and insisting that you believe both of them at the same time. Pick one! Because to criticize someone who was leader in 1789 for not abolishing slavery, when it was impossible to do so at that point without dismembering the United States and degenerating into an Early American Civil War (in other words, in the 1790s, rather than the1860s); and to say we must take things in context of the times and judge that leader by an absolute which---thank God---we accept in the modern world today, is to sit on the fence at best, or to be totally contradictory at worse.

You're saying that you believe we should take leaders' actions into historical context, but you're not doing it. You have spent an entire page in a futile exercise in Orwellian doublethink. It's OK to keep absolute morals in mind, yes, but if we are going to judge leaders IN CONTEXT then that requires a little deviation from the path of morality (which is most regrettable, but true).

You cannot drink your tea and dump it in Boston harbor, too!

JimHackerMP wrote:You cannot drink your tea and dump it in Boston harbor, too!

Well, yes you can. When you make tea, the leaves (in or out of a bag) are discarded once they have infused into the tea. Drinking the tea leaves with the tea is not recommended!

I think what we have established is that "good"/"bad" leaders is a subjective thing. Just as often it's not universally agreed what other things are "good"/"bad".

hacker

You're doing what George Orwell called doublethink: holding two simultaneously contradictory ideas and insisting that you believe both of them at the same time. Pick one! Because to criticize someone who was leader in 1789 for not abolishing slavery, when it was impossible to do so at that point without dismembering the United States and degenerating into an Early American Civil War (in other words, in the 1790s, rather than the1860s); and to say we must take things in context of the times and judge that leader by an absolute which---thank God---we accept in the modern world today, is to sit on the fence at best, or to be totally contradictory at worse.

This is not double think.
Its realizing that there are different metrics.
One metric is to look at what Washington did within his time period. And I've said he was very successful.
The other is to measure him in absolute terms. And in absolute terms he failed at many things.
You claim he could not have abolished slavery. I claim he never really tried.
That makes him a failure.
You want to give him a pass for that? How many people were forced into slavery between 1780 and the period when a US President finally decided to confront the moral calamity?

Looking at history with context does not mean one ignores the reality of the time. The early republic's government had institutionalized slavery, had little interest in the welfare of the poor, and was pursuing genocide against the indigenous people's of the continent.
As much as Washington was responsible for many things, he was also responsible for this...