7 Answers

  1. They are) We learn about them in old age – by reading their biographies or looking at the textbook of our grandson.

    In general, of course, outstanding figures are an indicator of the development or degradation of society. They do not fall from the moon to us, each team brings up Baba Yaga in itself. Either after Reagan and Thatcher, bright personalities were no longer needed by the peoples (a temporary phenomenon ) – neither Blair nor Bush pull on this scale, they shine too dimly, and the hot McCain was not given a chance; or the state of society is such that it is enough to be black (a bonus is a Nobel Prize) or sympathetic like Macron and Trudeau, or an assertive boor like Trump, and some emotions

    I believe that both are interrelated. Its roots are in a consumer society that is not naturally inclined to use the brain at all, in clip thinking, as an education, and many other factors.

    Not the least role is played by the media: politicians are promoted through them, and they influence voters not only before elections, but also on a daily basis. There is no longer any question of objectivity-in the elections in the United States and France, journalists clearly stand on the sides of the barricades, and DW is with them; regarding everyday life, a vivid example is the wonderful Medusa, where there is often a very biased presentation of material.

  2. The political sphere of all countries and times is the most backward of all spheres.

    Politics does not need brilliant people, but completely different people, and they are abundant there. Sometimes there are also talented people-on the sidelines. These are the rules of the game in politics.

    Political Carrot – a lot of people want to “have everything and not be responsible for anything” and this is given in politics to the most energetic, but this is not enough for everyone.

  3. Vladimir Putin, for example, has he not brilliantly led Russia away from the brink of collapse and is finding ways to resist the collective West led by the United States!? After all, the resources of the West are a hundred times greater than the potential of Russia! You need to be a genius to win one battle after another against them: Crimea, Syria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc. But Putin can!

    So he's a political genius!

  4. I am quite a cynical person, but I will say directly that in the history of civilization, brilliant philosophers can be counted on the fingers of one hand. A genius has appeared, and the public says that he is a bastard. because everyone's” I ” comes first.

  5. The system of selection in the system of which is the policy. A person must have a number of qualities. Have a certain political weight, and be able to reflect. And precisely to be as flexible as a water hose. It is not difficult to not please everyone at once. This requires understanding!

  6. Whether a person was a genius can only be judged after a long enough time has passed. And in addition to exact and natural sciences, where (and then not all) newly discovered facts can be strictly proved – this time often exceeds the life span of a person. Therefore, whether there are geniuses in modern politics, as well as in other areas of humanities and arts, we will find out in 30-100 years.

    In addition, politics is a complex area of human activity for the manifestation of genius according to purely probabilistic criteria. Since the world has a very small percentage of geniuses in all fields-one in hundreds of thousands, probably. But if, for example, a person with the makings of a technical genius wants to become an engineer, then he will succeed with a relatively high probability. Well, probably about 50%. But if a person with the makings of a political genius decides to become a politician , he will succeed with a probability of one in several tens of thousands. Because. Political genius will manifest itself and help a person only at the already sufficiently high stages of his career. And to overcome the first, you need completely different “qualities” – a” very good ” family. The ability is more likely not in politics but in business. Ability and willingness to work on paperwork for a low-level government job (whether appointed or elected) or to serve in law enforcement agencies. And the days of fiery charismatics are already over. Well, perhaps in addition to countries where either there is a revolutionary situation. Either the war has just ended and there is no real power yet. But again, back to probability. The country usually stays in this situation for a very short time. And then either the ruling class – the establishment-collapses or is formed there. And having become a politician in such a country, the probability of simply not living up to the recognition of your genius is too high.

  7. There are probably two non-reasons and two reasons.

    The first non-reason is that we perceive time to be more “sparse” as we move away from the period in which we live. Between the two “great ones” from the past, a decent amount of time could have passed, which we perceive as “empty”. So it is possible that our descendants will perceive us as” almost contemporaries ” of Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt.

    The second non-reason is that, as rightly noted in Ivan Renard's question, statesmen are appointed “great” post-factum and are not always evaluated as unambiguously by their contemporaries. For example, Abraham Lincoln, now unconditionally recognized as one of the greatest presidents of the United States, received only 55% of the vote in the 1864 election, against the backdrop of a practically won war with the South, and he had to take the frankly weak Andrew Johnson, whose main advantage was his southern origin (the Confederate states did not participate in the vote, of course, but one part of the slave states remained loyal to the Union, Similarly, in 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who successfully led the country out of the crises of the Great Depression and World War II, won only 53% of the popular vote.Almost half of the Americans who reached the polling stations preferred Republican Thomas Dewey, whose name today means little to anyone outside the United States. Of course, the decision to vote in the election depends not only on the assessment of the candidate's contribution to history, but also on other factors (for example, Roosevelt's health was clearly failing by November 1944 – he died just six months later). But it is important that the “genius” itself is not so clearly distinguished by contemporaries – most of the “great politicians” were very controversial figures during their lifetime.

    As for not distortions of our perception, but actually realistic reasons for the trend mentioned in the question, we can distinguish two.

    First, we live in a relatively stable and peaceful time. Most politicians, fortunately, do not have to deal with crises of the level of the revolutions of 1917 or both world wars – and those, in turn, made it possible to go down in history almost any statesman who was somehow involved in them, regardless of his real personal qualities, whether in a positive or negative way. For example, I strongly doubt that anyone other than experts and enthusiasts of the history of the First World War would remember Field Marshal Hindenburg now, if not for him not becoming president of Germany and not appointing Hitler as Reich Chancellor in 1933-and so he entered all textbooks simply by the fact that he made (and without much enthusiasm and not alone) a decision with such far – reaching consequences.�

    Second, there are now more and more democracies in the world, and in democracies the opportunities for political genius are limited – as we have seen from the examples above, voters do not always think the same way as the authors of textbooks for their grandchildren, and the system of checks and balances restricts the freedom for maneuver of individual players.

    So, in general, it is not so bad that there are no brilliant politicians now – it is not always easy to live under their power.

Leave a Reply