I wonder what Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International have to say about the Bush Administration's policies, now that we're taking them as authorities again.
In other words, Clinton could believably portray a great intellectual. So Wilson, uh? Did he write anything interesting? (I'm still catching up with US history)
Really? An intellectual as well as a military general? Talk about a renaissance man. Who would be the greatest intellectual among all US presidents? James Madison?
Clinton was a President who became a celebrity. We're talking about intellectuals, Ike is clearly not one.
Well if he's bored and a fruit, of course she's not gonna...oh ******** it, I just remembered I do stop at some things.
So am I. Just know bits and peices. He was a political scientist, not a philosopher. He had some brilliant ideas for his time such as Seperations of powers, and the league of nations which was later implemented as United Nations.
He was a professor of law and politics in Princeton. He eventually rose to president of said university. I think that usually qualifies someone as an intellectual. He was known as a speaker and writer, although I don't think any of his books was really known among the public at large. He also wrote for the Atlantic Monthly, which autmatically makes him awesome in my estimation.
Interesting. I wonder how Wilson would react if he saw the U.N. as it is today. How does it measure up to his vision? So far we have Jefferson..Madison..Wilson...Ike? I can't say I know enough to challenge that last one, but in general I'd think great intellectuals wouldn't make great generals, and I know Ike was certainly the latter. Although, I'm sure people might come up with some historical example to disprove my point.
IMO, he had a genuine interest in global peace when he drafted out "the league of nations". I want to think that he meant it to be a platform for discussion and resolution of international problems without any outside agendas. I don't believe he wanted any country to use it as a vehicle to reach their own agendas by the way of "persuation", as it has become, another word - I don't thinkhe had an "imperialistic" view of it, although no doubt as the leader of a nation, he wanted his country to benefit from it as well. It's has turned into a political tool for the few powerful nations to legitimize their ways&methods of protecting their interests. The areas of UN that are least politicized and "mandated" are the areas that are most successful, for the good of all participants, such ISO, UNSPSC,........, standards that help nations "interact" with each other uniformly but with no use of "force". Nations are much more willing to accept that kinda approch toward all aspects of UN.
A couple of quick notes: -Than Shwe is an atheist. -Niyazov is not a Muslim. He's effectively created his own religion, with himself as both the object of worship and the head of the church. -Hu Jintao is not a dictator. He doesn't wield absolute power, and he's technically responsible to the Politburo. Plus, it's important to note that when Jiang Zemin stepped down as China's head of state, he nevertheless retained the chairmanship of the Central Military Commission, and that's where the real power lies. Whoever controls the PLA controls China, and Hu doesn't control the PLA.
That is a good point. From that perspective, Hu doesn't belong in the list at all. What is a dictator? A person who rules by his personal power, an absolute ruler? Certainly even dictators have some constraints, but for the most part they have the power to rule at their whim. Certainly that doesn't apply to Hu. Hu is a government bureocrat, a political climber in the Chinese politboro. If he does anything the ruling elite doesn't like, he can easily be replaced and nothing changes. I don't think even Jiang belongs. China is not a dictatorship. China is very complex, but the way I see it, it is ruled by a bureocratic militaristic political aparatus, and it is the system in China that is responsible for whatever evils somebody may want to asign to an individual like Hu.
It really is. If you look at the educational background of the Chinese elite, they all have engineering degrees. They're technocrats. The Communist Party is pretty much just for show these days - China is in actuality ruled by its own military-industrial complex. To elaborate on what I said about Jiang, all you need to know about real power in the Chinese government you can derive from looking at Mao. While Mao jumped around various positions in the CCP and eventually ceded the presidency of the PRC to first Liu Shaoqi and then Zhou Enlai, the one position that he never relinquihed upon recieving it was Chairman of the Central Military Commission.
Herbert Hoover is my favouritest US president ever, and he was certainly a very, very bright guy, but he wasn't exactly what I would call an intellectual. I agree Woody was probably the last intellectual. Quite depressing really, from one point of view, when you look at the backgrounds of presidents this century, as opposed to the 19th. Didn't JFK publish a thesis or something? I recall reading somewhere that it was fairly ho-hum as far as they go, but sold well on account of his popularity.
I think his pop got his undergraduate history thesis published. I remember some story about a family friend who read it upon Joe's request, and who responded: "Fine. Why did you publish it? It's not bad, but it's not any better than what hundreds of good undergraduate history majors produce every year." Forget who that story is from, but it was in the context of the type of honesty that powerful men don't get much anymore. Seems like a Bill Moyers type of story...
Maybe until John Quincy Adams, but after that the 19th century presidents were mostly just party hacks. Even Lincoln, though a gifted orator and a great letter writer, didn't produce any great governing treatise. FWIW, I'm not convinced that "intellectuals" would make better Presidents than the people who actually get elected. Wilson, after all, segregated Washington, D.C. and thought "Birth of a Nation" was an accurate representation of history.
If I can take this backwards... He was also very critical of the American governmental system, and wanted a European style parliment. He thought the system of checks and balances between powers the cause of the massive corruption in Congress in the post-Civil War period. Maybe not, but there haven't been to many recent data points to really tell. I had higher hopes for the guys with hard knowledge backgrounds (Hoover being a geologist and Carter being an engineer) or business backgrounds (umm.. that's Hoover and Carter again, with Harding). Maybe being an actor really is the best preparation.
No, really. Not only is Hu a secret practitioner of Fallon Gong, but he actually is one of its founders. Hu understands that for a new religion to get some traction and get established, it needs martyrs. So, he is willing to betray his fellow worshipers and be reviled, all for the future good of his religion. (Just like the recently vindicated Saint Judas was so corageously willing to do it for Christianity.) (I should use the grinning face, to avoid further questioning.)