View Full Version : What books do you think all leaders (presidents, kings, emperors) should read?
lokariototal
10-18-2009, 03:52 PM
Kings, Emperors, Presidents..... What books should they read? What do you think?
dfloyd
10-18-2009, 04:12 PM
The Prince by Machiavelli
Well, talking about more non-fiction stuff, I study political science and at my faculty, Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince {as said before} is rudimentary and I would personally recommend Master Sun's The Art of War {I hope I translated it well}.......
But if you want more like fiction.... V for Vendetta, 1984 .... not to let the leaders go astray.....:rolleyes:
If they are establishing a government, it would behoove them to read this research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#Advantages_of_a_parliamentary _system):
There is a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse [than presidentialism]. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the 30 countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, "All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly."
Lokasenna
10-18-2009, 04:55 PM
Do you really want your monarchs/politicians reading things like The Prince and 1984? They might get ideas!
Something like The Idiot would better set the tone for how a ruler should behave, and perhaps a bit of Victor Hugo, and Charles Dickens at his most sober, to gain empathy with the plight of ordinary people.
Whifflingpin
10-19-2009, 04:35 PM
"Do you really want your monarchs/politicians reading things like The Prince and 1984? They might get ideas!"
Your warning is too late. All the signs show that "1984" has been the handbook of western politicians for decades - (Well, those of them that can read, that is - word was that a special picture version was prepared for ...)
LitNetIsGreat
10-19-2009, 05:20 PM
"Do you really want your monarchs/politicians reading things like The Prince and 1984? They might get ideas!"
Your warning is too late. All the signs show that "1984" has been the handbook of western politicians for decades - (Well, those of them that can read, that is - word was that a special picture version was prepared for ...)
:nod:
Get them to read some gentle poetry or something by Beatrix Potter, I don't know The Tale of Benjamin Bunny or something.,,
prendrelemick
10-20-2009, 05:42 AM
Perhaps they should read this after The tale of Benjamin Bunny.
Ozymandias.
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away
mal4mac
10-20-2009, 06:54 AM
The Republic - Plato
Nicomachean Ethics - Aristotle
On Liberty - J.S. Mill
Wordsworth - The Old Cumberland Begger
From The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce (first written in 1906, but somehow still accurate):
Politics, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
Politician, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.
Senate, n. A body of elderly gentlemen charged with high duties and misdemeanors.
Congress, n. A body of men who meet to repeal laws.
Presidency, n. The greased pig in the field game of American politics.
President, n. The leading figure in a small group of men of whom - and of whom only - it is positively known that immense numbers of their countrymen did not want any of them for President.
Gone with the Wind! To learn something about human friendship and commradship in times of difficulty!
kiki1982
10-22-2009, 04:29 AM
Did Voltaire not write something about 'Enlightened Despotism'. The works of Montesquieu also seem interesting for all leaders to know the difference between making your own laws and the concept of a constitutional regime. Particularly a certain European prime minister would benefit from that.
But we would then better make sure that they have learned their stuff and have an exam at the end of the course. Just to make sure that they don't believe that they should apply 1984 f.e.... :D
sixsmith
10-22-2009, 06:06 AM
The Opium of the Intellectuals - Raymond Aron
crystalmoonshin
10-22-2009, 09:13 AM
The Prince by Machiavelli
Not this one! A leader who reads this and applies the ideas to his subjects will be a tyrant who will cause much suffering.
Not this one! A leader who reads this and applies the ideas to his subjects will be a tyrant who will cause much suffering.
If one believes that history repeats itself, has in the past, and will in the future, as well as the today mirroring yesterday, then one would hope that learning of the past may prevent us from making similar mistakes in the future, such as of Machiavellian politics; for reasons like this, we take history courses beginning from our most elementary ages. I truly hope you do not advocate for literary censorship, crystalmoonshin, especially amid a population of individuals, such as politicians, who should not boast ignorance in their fields of specialty; in order to know what tyranny is, we must identify it, and if you consider The Prince a great example of tyranny, then let us bring it to light.
Buh4Bee
10-22-2009, 10:46 AM
sorry to disrupt the conversation, wanted to add Rousseau...
Bill Clinton read the Alchemist and loved it! Got the whole country to read it.
The Comedian
10-22-2009, 10:53 AM
Desert Solitaire (Edward Abbey) -- so that they understand the enduring value of wild places and wild men.
The Fragility of Goodness (Martha Nussbaum) -- so that they understand idea of good and evil (and get a lesson in Greek tragedy).
crystalmoonshin
10-22-2009, 01:16 PM
If one believes that history repeats itself, has in the past, and will in the future, as well as the today mirroring yesterday, then one would hope that learning of the past may prevent us from making similar mistakes in the future, such as of Machiavellian politics; for reasons like this, we take history courses beginning from our most elementary ages. I truly hope you do not advocate for literary censorship, crystalmoonshin, especially amid a population of individuals, such as politicians, who should not boast ignorance in their fields of specialty; in order to know what tyranny is, we must identify it, and if you consider The Prince a great example of tyranny, then let us bring it to light.
Not that I am advocating literacy censorship. It's just that I dislike the idea of a leader who cares more for power than for his subjects. As Lokasenna puts it, "they might get ideas" from reading "The Prince". Somehow, this book reminds me of our present government, thus my initial reaction was surprise at finding "The Prince" in this list. I see the present leader as a despotic and nepotistic leader who showers favors on her allies and crushes her enemies without mercy just so she can remain in power. There have been a lot of political killings since her rise to office and the people have sought to remove her but she remains adamant, with the support of the military and majority of the government officials.
On the whole though, I think "The Prince" is an insightful book. I like the idea of self-sufficiency most. I guess it still depends on the reader if he will reject the ideas or adopt them for himself.
Not that I am advocating literacy censorship. It's just that I dislike the idea of a leader who cares more for power than for his subjects. As Lokasenna puts it, "they might get ideas" from reading "The Prince". Somehow, this book reminds me of our present government, thus my initial reaction was surprise at finding "The Prince" in this list. I see the present leader as a despotic and nepotistic leader who showers favors on her allies and crushes her enemies without mercy just so she can remain in power. There have been a lot of political killings since her rise to office and the people have sought to remove her but she remains adamant, with the support of the military and majority of the government officials.
On the whole though, I think "The Prince" is an insightful book. I like the idea of self-sufficiency most. I guess it still depends on the reader if he will reject the ideas or adopt them for himself.
In a sense, except what does the Prince teach a ruler that will benefit others? It essentially is a book that removes the concept of morality from governing.
In the same sense, something like the Guanzi from ancient China that influenced Confucius seems to remove the concept of benefiting the people as well - the main focus is in solidifying power. Confucius himself would, if read by an Emperor, only suggest means of control and of creating a Confucian ideal - not of creating a harmonious place.
The truth is, no matter how we look at it, the concept of morality seems rooted - a Utopian ideal, for instance, fails to really work - the whole first book deals with the notion of to what extent humanism and philosophy can be applied, and should be applied by humanists and philosophers toward advising rulers - the main example of Plato's brief stunt as a political adviser would suggest one side - the idealized side, which was ignored by those he was advising, whereas the Cicero side, which is rooted in rhetoric, was shown to be effective - but we all know that Cicero was hardly the most moral character - to what extent then can we suggest idealized ideas of benefit to a ruler.
In essence it comes down to what we want the ruler to do - from my political perspective, I would have a ruler as more of an accountant than ruler - as such, I would have them read budgeting books, and the like - as for political philosophy, no matter what they read, the end result will be dependent on their goals as a leader. If they decide to be tyrannical, there is no point giving them the Republic, because in essence they will use it as a form of argument to their own advantage. Machiavelli only describes how to control, not how to properly govern and be "good to the people". Likewise, Confucius does the same, and Mencius the same - Rousseau only outlines a theory of a social contract - the conditions of the contract are still up for debate, and what is made of the thought is hardly useful to a ruler, by my wager.
The whole genre of political writing doesn't really change much in the long scheme of things - political science as a subject in itself is rather inconsequential beyond a point of just understanding how structures work. The application depends on what it is being applied to do.
As such, Machiavelli praises the most successful government as the most totalitarian one - for his time, the Ottoman empire, where the Sultan was essentially an absolute ruler, and didn't really allow anything to be out of his control, in contrast to Europe, where the people were sworn to a local noble, rather than the regent himself - does that make a good ruler though?
Literature, as a political force, works far better in democracy than it possibly can in authoritarian regimes, since it works more to sway opinion and perspective of a mass, then of a ruler. In that sense, Confucius, or Plato work better in getting people to understand how they are being ruled, and what to expect and what could be better, rather than in the opposite sense, of getting a ruler to understand how to rule.
Lokasenna
10-22-2009, 01:47 PM
Not that I am advocating literacy censorship. It's just that I dislike the idea of a leader who cares more for power than for his subjects. As Lokasenna puts it, "they might get ideas" from reading "The Prince". Somehow, this book reminds me of our present government, thus my initial reaction was surprise at finding "The Prince" in this list. I see the present leader as a despotic and nepotistic leader who showers favors on her allies and crushes her enemies without mercy just so she can remain in power. There have been a lot of political killings since her rise to office and the people have sought to remove her but she remains adamant, with the support of the military and majority of the government officials.
On the whole though, I think "The Prince" is an insightful book. I like the idea of self-sufficiency most. I guess it still depends on the reader if he will reject the ideas or adopt them for himself.
I should point out that I was being slightly facetious with that comment. Machiavelli's methods may be cynical, but they are neither inherently good or evil. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is a fantastic example of a dictator who used his complete control over every facet of his country to actually massively improve things. That said, tyrants like him are rather unusual.
David R
10-22-2009, 03:47 PM
J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. One of the messages of the book is that power should be given to those who least want it, an idea embodied by the characters of Aragorn and Frodo Baggins. The destruction of the ring represents the idea of the ending of totalitarian and dictatorial systems of government.
blazeofglory
10-22-2009, 09:48 PM
They must read the Mahabharata, a book that teaches everything from politics to ethics and diplomacy, dialogues, reconciliations and peace treaties.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.