Who do you think was the best politician of their, and of all, time?

What "best" means, is up to you. Most powerful, most successful - perhaps the one who was the most right?

1) Bismark (1815 - 1898) - The "Iron Chancellor" united and expanded Germany in three victorious and ruthlessly organized wars, otherwise known as the Wars of German Unification. Additionally, Otton von Bismark can be credited with weaving Europe's alliances and diplomatic ties, all of which came in to effect in 1914. A talented diplomat and a devious politician.

2) Hitler (1889 - 1945) - Perhaps the most notorious political figure for his canny ability to whip up a croud in to blind frenzy. Lead the Nazi party to power through nothing short of genius political behaviour. Lacks, maybe, in the diplomatic arena, but then - maybe not.

3) Cicero (106BC - 43BC) - Famous figure during the turbulent and ending times of the Roman Republic. Brilliant orator, learning all he knew about the political game through bloody and dangerous civil wars, applying his skills to win over the people of Rome.

4) Pitt (1708 - 1778) - Born in a period when politicians held more power than monarchs, Pitt led a young Empire to defeat the French in all corners of the globe, securing America and India, and the sea's. Through craft-like political skill, Pitt the Elder became so popular than not even dismissal from an envious King could keep him away from politics, being recalled more than once by the demands of the people. A great orator of the 18th century, to his dying days Pitt showed great wisdom, especially in his sympathetic view of the American colonists during George III's reign.

5) Random_American_Politican (? - ?) - I'm keeping this one free, as I know choosing just the one will cause some people to cry. Undeniably the spot deserves to go to a revolutionary, Franklin, Jefferson...someone like that. You decide :P Maybe even Roosovelt.

6) Robespierre (1758 - 1794) - Lol. This should get some response...

I dunno, go crazy. Throw in all the ones I've missed. Got a feeling this should be a lively debate.

the question is, where is churchill? you slut!

Halo you live in the past too much, come back to reality and enjoy life.

'Halo you live in the past too much, come back to reality and enjoy life.'

- Sir, I say sir! I take offense to that! I do not live in the past.
I'll have your head for that.
Pistols at ten paces, dawn tommorrow! Make haste old chap!

I thought about Churchill, and I thought... greatest politician? Wartime leader? Definately. Diplomat, quite possible. But politically? His early political life was rather drab, if not at times catastrophic. His switch between political parties and his rise to the position of Prime Minister isn't what I'd call spectacular. He was definately a top factor in considering contributions to the war effort, but I wouldn't rate him as a political mastermind.

well, he was a hell of an orator too

when you say "politician" it makes me think Bill Clinton. Politician in my eyes is skewed toward the connotation of the word politician in today's society. No one knew how to play the "politician" game better than Bill. Now if you said who's the best revolutionary, best leader, best expansionist, best diplomat, etc I'd give you all differant answers.

If you look back several hundred years though, it was all god given power imbued on the next in line, to me that doesn't make one a politician. I really can't agree with anyone in a Monarchy as a "politician" and no I don't consider the UK a monarchy anymore, the queen is just a trophy.

If one wanted to say who was the best revolutionary, i'd have to say Thomas Jefferson. Best Leader, I'd have to say Napolean until Waterloo. Best expansionist, I'd have to say Hitler 1939-1944. But "best" being such a subjective term, can someone be the best when they are so destructive to a population of people like Hitler?

ahh hell if we're going to duel I want to use swords screw guns and bullets! I mean ya know guns are modern and such.

*takes off his glove and smacks Halo to and hence*

back to the topic at hand.....

I have no real opinion of the "best" politician, I will have to think on that more.

Stalin. A career change from bank robber to one of the most powerful leaders in history is quite a feat. He consolidated and kept that position of power for well over two decades. I think that's hard to top.

Pericles
Nobody else really even comes close.
(although you also forgot Napoleon and Augustus/Julius Caesar)

Pericles lead Athens for 30 years in its golden age, dominated the Greek Penisula as the architect of the Delian League, one of the sweetest deals ever.
Athens at this time was an almost pure democracy, somewhat developed though the efforts for Pericles. To hold power this long in that type of system is an amazing feat.

Both Pericles and Stalin would be excellent choices, good point.

But Caeser? I don't know, honestly. One of the best generals, strategists, war leaders? I've no doubt.

But to say he was one of the best politicians the world has seen, well, how so? If it were not for his military prowess (defeating Pompey, for one), he would have had a short political life.
It's dangerous to choose too many brilliant men from Rome, as more often than not, their intertwining military careers are usually the dominant factor in their successful lives.

The exact same goes for Napoleon, IMO.

Since I'm studying British history at the moment, I figured I might add something to this, even if not totally serious. Britain has certainly had some interesting politicians, one of the most remarkable I would have to say is Henry VIII, now that's a guy who would stop at nothing to get his will through!
On a more serious note though, Robert Walpole was what would have to be considered a very skillful politician. He made the very best of the situation and managed to stay in power for a very long period of time.
Now, that he was the "best" politician ever I very much doubt, but I'm not very familiar with this kind of history in general and just felt like adding something..

[Edit: Oh yeah, I just reread your original post and saw you had already mentioned Pitt..]

' On a more serious note though, Robert Walpole was what would have to be considered a very skillful politician.'

- We consider Walpole to be the father of modern British politics, of the coalition of governments and of excellent diplomatic skill.

Again, good choice. For me, it was either him or Pitt, but considering the massive amount of achievement attained under Pitt, and almost directly because of Pitt, I had to leave out Walpole.

What Walpole was undeniably genius in, was keeping the peace. With major success.
Pitt was the opposite, with major success.

Yeah, I know, he is often referred to as the first British prime minister as well. For me I would have to pick Walpole over Pitt, like you said Pitt was incredibly successful in his battles against the French but I'm always rather partial to the peaceful ones. Through (British) history, there has been a lot of progress under the peaceful rulers, although I suppose you can say that without all the wars, there wouldn't have been a whole lot of Britain left to rule..

5) Random_American_Politican (? - ?) - I'm keeping this one free, as I know choosing just the one will cause some people to cry. Undeniably the spot deserves to go to a revolutionary, Franklin, Jefferson...someone like that. You decide :P Maybe even Roosovelt.


Without a doubt this has to go to Jefferson.

Howcome?

I was almost certain someone by now would have said Bush.

Without a doubt this has to go to Jefferson
Jefferson is by far my favorite of the founders. But I don't think he makes the cut as a great politician. To me, to be a great politician, one should a) be able to gain power through great oratorical skills or personal magnetism ( or, more likely, a combination of both ) and b) make sound decisions with that power. Jefferson fails both of those. While he was elected president, largely as a Revolutionary War figure, many of his contemporaries did not like him. He is probably one of the most devisive figures from that time ( though Hamilton was no better ) and began the "party" system we know today. His dream of turning the United States into an agrarian utopia isn't what I consider a "sound decision". I love his championing of human rights, but he was a stubborn man.

George Washington best fits the greatest politican label. Mediocre military commander and no great orator, his personal magnetism was such that no one really opposed him in any serious way. Without Washington, it is very likely the United States wouldn't exist today as there is almost no possible way the Constitution would have been written if he hadn't been there to preside over the Convention. He added very little in the way of ideas to the Convention, but his presence kept the opposing sides from killing one another. And unlike Pericles, once he gained power, he didn't send his government head long into a war that destroyed it ( Pericles was the original demagogue ).

Fil

Bismark , no doubt ...

he was also the very first who invented social security systems to the german public (which was the very first worldwide).

George Washington best fits the greatest politican label.
I have to agree with Filatal for the reasons mentioned as well as a couple of others.

As I recall from history classes, George Washington did not really want the position. He wanted to help form the new nation but was not really interested in being the President. He was a statesman and deserves a great deal of credit for leading the country in a war for independence, as well as KEEPING the new country together after the last shot was fired. As mentioned, keeping the different personalities from killing each other long enough to get a constitution written seems to deserve recognition.

Ceasar? Naa.. great general... but not much of a politician.

Caligula would be better... do everyone, their dog and the horse they rode in on.

:(


10-25-2004 10:49 AM*cries* I'm not obsessed
yes you are but I didn't deserve that :(

You're right, I'm sorry. Just started my period today, a bit uptight.

Regarding the revolutionary figures, I think it's dangerous as there's always a will to want to name them great politicians, great people though they may be. Same as falling in to the trap of finding Napoleon or Caeser as great politicians.
If you get a chance, you should read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the US" about the revolution's aftermath. A large number of people at that time, like Madison and others, wanted to create a new American aristocracy modeled on my own country with the exception that taxes went to the top people in America, not Britain. So while great people like Washington persisted he would be president, not king, and others of his like, suck as Jefferson kept America from becoming another Britain, it's hard not to say they were great politicians, instead of great political figures.
But I'm getting a little sidetracked.

Bah, thought this topic would be flying up the pages, what with having left the Amertican spot open.

Or maybe... there just haven't been many American contendors? (that'll do it, I think)

As Americans, we are so busy dealing with some of the most inept and dangerous politicians in our history and very snarky election campaigns... so please forgive us if we seem a bit distracted.

Just a few more days... just a few more.

If you want to go back and elaborate on why you don't think George Washington was a great politicians, I'll happily tell you why you are wrong. :) But I really didn't understand that post, so I have no way of responding to it.

Fil

Uhm, OK.

In short, great men may not always be great politicians.

Da daa!