I think this was the title of a movie about the historic Count Dracula. Anyway, do you agree with the statement? I'm thinking specifically in the context of electing leaders of a country.
Sometimes you need a monster
- Thread starter Second Summer
- Start date
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
No. The statement assumes "monsters" are the only viable leaders to solve tough issues. But that's a chick or the egg argument. People who run for office, are by their intrinsic natures monsters searching for power, money glory, fame, influence, etc. They are the types that will stop at nothing to get what they want, even if it means using people, lying, stepping over and on others, backstabbing, and other similar behaviors. It's a certain personality type that is drawn to politics, and thus it is the only frame of reference we have for an "effective" leader.
Even the Liberal leaders share these characteristics, and actively hide their nature to appeal to the demographic they want to get votes from.
Even the Liberal leaders share these characteristics, and actively hide their nature to appeal to the demographic they want to get votes from.
OP
OP
I'm not sure most leaders today would qualify as "monster". I agree that one probably needs to have certain unkind qualities to play the political game well and deal with opponents, but I still think they usually have some moral scruples. Compared to Prince Vlad III of Wallachia a.k.a. Vlad The Impaler, or current leaders are some real humanitarians.
Last edited:
Clueless Git
Plant powered
Yes, I think you do sometimes need monsters.
Sadam Hussain springs to mind. Once his boot was taken off of the Iraqi people they promptly started sticking the boot into one another.
Wassisface who ruled Yugoslavia would be another example. They freed the Serbs and Bosnians from his iron fist and, like the Iraqi's, the Bosnians and Serbs promptly launched virtual genocides against one and other.
I'm not 100% on this one.
It does seem that only a murderous physcopath of a leader can keep the lid on the worst excesses of a murderously inclined population of physcopaths though.
Sadam Hussain springs to mind. Once his boot was taken off of the Iraqi people they promptly started sticking the boot into one another.
Wassisface who ruled Yugoslavia would be another example. They freed the Serbs and Bosnians from his iron fist and, like the Iraqi's, the Bosnians and Serbs promptly launched virtual genocides against one and other.
I'm not 100% on this one.
It does seem that only a murderous physcopath of a leader can keep the lid on the worst excesses of a murderously inclined population of physcopaths though.
I think one needs a sizeable ego in order to want to run a country. That doesn't necessarily make one a monster, though.
I tend to agree that, at certain points in their histories, certain cultures/societies may need autocratic/dictatorial rule in order to avoid the kind of mayhem that results in widespread violence.
I don't necessarily agree that that requires a "monster" though - I guess it depends on how one defines "monster." I'm trying to think of dictators who weren't psychopaths. (Such can be found historically, among certain very strong monarchs, but I'm discounting them because it's one thing to be born into a position and hold onto it; IMO, it takes a different kind of personality to fight itself up to take power and then hold onto it.)
Fidel Castro? Franco? Chiang Kai-Shek? Deng Xiaoping? Ruthless in their own right, but not psychopaths?
I tend to agree that, at certain points in their histories, certain cultures/societies may need autocratic/dictatorial rule in order to avoid the kind of mayhem that results in widespread violence.
I don't necessarily agree that that requires a "monster" though - I guess it depends on how one defines "monster." I'm trying to think of dictators who weren't psychopaths. (Such can be found historically, among certain very strong monarchs, but I'm discounting them because it's one thing to be born into a position and hold onto it; IMO, it takes a different kind of personality to fight itself up to take power and then hold onto it.)
Fidel Castro? Franco? Chiang Kai-Shek? Deng Xiaoping? Ruthless in their own right, but not psychopaths?
Similar threads
