A question of leadership

[unixronin]

Let us skip, for the moment, long arguments about what form of government is best, and consider Robert Anson Heinlein's assertion (via Lazarus Long) that democracy is doomed to fail once its citizens realize they have the power to vote themselves bread and circuses, and that possibly the best and most stable form of government is a benevolent dictatorship.

I will emphasize at this point that this is not a debate on whether he was right.  If you disagree with the assertion, feel free to skip the discussion entirely if you wish, but please don't diverge into arguments about why it's wrong.

The point here is quite simple:  Assume for the moment that Heinlein's, or Long's, assertion is correct.  That stipulated, and under that condition, what I solicit is your opinion as to who might make a good Supreme Leader, and more importantly, why.

Conditions:

• Your candidate may not be fictional.
• Your candidate must be currently alive.
• Your candidate need not be a current public figure.

Beyond those ground rules, it's wide open.  Go for it.

Comments

[jilara.livejournal.com]

He wouldn't take it, from what I've seen of the man, but Packard ("Packy") Offield of the Wrigley family. He's been essentially the benevolent dictator of Santa Catalina for decades, and has implemented an amazingly responsible environmental and civic-oriented philosophy for the Island. (And anyone who would rather run a small island fiefdom than be a bigwig in an extremely wealthy corporate family has something, right there. Which brings us to another of those connundrums. Most of the people who are best qualified for such positions wouldn't want them to begin with.)

[bbullock.livejournal.com]

"I wouldn't want to be president of any club that would have me for a member."
Or something like that. Groucho Marx, if I recall correctly.