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

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

A very interesting suggestion with a lot of merit. He's also demonstrated fairly well that he isn't power-mad.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

If you want to go that route, you might try Jim Kramer. He's the hedge fund manager turned financial-advisor-to-the-masses; he capers about CNBC quite a bit most days.... he's loud, he's brash, he takes no bullshit from anybody.... but he *thinks*, and he *knows people*. And he also knows how people are, and can tell if your bs'ing them or not. He's one of that class of people known as "loveable asshole"... he's somewhat arrogant, but that's because he knows he's right... and when he's wrong, he comes clean about it, willingly.