Pick the world's leaders, part two
A follow-up to this recent post: the BBC announces the results of its global poll on who should lead the world. The big winner is Nelson Mandela. Those in common between my picks and the final eleven are Nelson Mandela (1), Bill Clinton (2), Noam Chomsky (4), Alan Greenspan (5), George Soros (10) and Kofi Annan (11).
12 comments:
Who says we need a leader that is still alive. I say the music of Woody Guthrie is basis enough for a solid society. You may laugh at this answer thinking, "Here's Liam again, thinking he's being clever." Seriously though, the clean, smooth, gentle, socialist lyrics of American folk legend Woody Guthrie will always inspire a sense of humility, equality, and a genuine love for justice. Give his music a listen, his lyrics are truly words to remember.
Justice? How do we define justice? There's many definitions, and socialism is only one of them!
Jokes Liam! I hope you will recall our interesting discussion during that trip to Ottawa. You know I'm on your side (generally).
Bill Clinton??
Why?
Sorry Anonymous.
Okay, well, I'll pick up from Anonymous. Bill Clinton?!
:-)
Well, why not Bill Clinton?
- The US during his term saw its largest budget converted to its largest surplus, with millions of new jobs.
- Strenghened environmental regulations, gun and drugs control.
- Did more than any other US president in mediating between the two sides of the ME conflict.
- Mediated in the N. Ireland issue, unilaterally forced Serbia to stop persecution of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
- Has launched the Clinton Global Initiative to tackle poverty, climate change, religious conflict and governance issues in the US and around the world.
The only black mark I can think of with respect to him is the sanctions on Iraq.
Well, there's also the tiny flaw that is his moral character.
Ah yes, I was wondering whether I ought to have mentioned that part of what we know about Bill Clinton.
I don't see why that should be an issue in our task here, which is picking who we think can be a good world leader.
People's private lives and moral indiscretions limited to their individual sphere are exactly that: individual and private. It would have been a different case if Clinton had taken a bribe while in office, or deliberately misappropriated public funds, or committed some other crime - such acts constitute a breach of duty owed by a president or leader to the public and to society. Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky does not fall under this category.
Let's leave people's private lives out what they can or cannot do for the world.
That would have been an adequate argument if his moral indiscretions were in fact an element of his private life. But his relationship with Monica Lewinsky was rather public. The White house does count as 'public', does it not?
But his relationship with Monica Lewinsky was rather public.
I'm not sure what you mean. Is the problem that his relationship became public afterwards? Or that Lewinsky was a White House employee as opposed to some outside acquaintance? Or that the whole thing went on while he was "on the job", as opposed to after working hours? What are working hours for the president of the United States?
In any of these cases, it's hardly as catastrophic as we're making it out to be.
Well, it's not catastrophic. The hurricane was catastrophic. But it does demonstrate his moral inadequacies. He was impeached for various reasons (perjury being one). But I suppose you and I just have different perspectives on what it means to be a leader.
And of course, it's fair to say others have moral failings too. Bush has plenty. I wouldn't see either of them as examples of exceptional people (ie. leaders).
Oh, and the problem is that he had the relationship - it's not problematic simply because it became public. He was having sexual relations with Lewinsky at the same time as he was conducting official business. That's problematic to moi.
Post a Comment