Gandalf for President?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Except...

I'm going to have to harp on about the distinction I hinted at in my last post between "General" and "President".

Both are leaders.

But there are some radical distinctions between the two.

A general leads in battle. He* has his superiors, but he commands from an authoritative position. A president leads from an office. His authority is below no one's, but he cannot command in the same unilateral manner--in other words, he must be a politician.

Gandalf, I reiterate, does not strike me as a president. His leadership is very much, when he assumes it, unilateral and focused on a particular goal (a military campaign, even). He does not have a long-term authoritative mandate.

And as for "Steward of Middle-earth"... presented as such this is almost uncanonical, and even though Gandalf tells Denethor that he is a steward too, I think it's very clear that he means it in the sense of a Caretaker, which is his entire point, because there's a huge difference between the role of a caretaker and the role of a "president", which is precisely how Denethor saw his office.

Actually... now that I mention it... Denethor might get my vote. Sorry, Saruman.


*"He" is used only because Gandalf is a "he" and for convenience. It is fully acknowledged that the offices of general or president need not be masculine only.

Gandalf the White, as Steward of Middle Earth (a slightly flattering but truthful generalisation), may not have been officially installed as a King or ruler, but that does not mean he could not do it to a superior level to others such as Denethor and Theoden, who in many ways could not govern themselves or their countries without much counsel on policy making.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gandalf the White, as Steward of Middle Earth (a slightly flattering but truthful generalisation), may not have been officially installed as a King or ruler, but that does not mean he could not do it to a superior level to others such as Denethor and Theoden, who in many ways could not govern themselves or their countries without much counsel on policy making.

Yes, but that's kind of the point of Gandalf: to counsel, to assist, and to guide. And, for what it's worth, your assertion about Denethor is rather unfair, since he took pretty much no one's counsel, and while this ended in personal despair for him, he was remarkably successful until that point at leading Gondor bravely in defence against a much more powerful enemy.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

No, there was never a point where Tolkien referred to Gandalf as "Steward of Middle-earth", and he certainly was not "in charge of governing Middle-earth as a whole" ever. You seem to ignore Aragorn, Theoden, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, Thranduil, Dain and Brand.



Formendacil understands Gandalf's concept of leadership. It is not to govern or lead in a political sense, it is as a mentor to kings and a missionary from the Valar. As I stated previously, when Gandalf's mission was completed, he left, and no politician in the history of the world quit when he was at the pinnacle of power.

So, no, Gandalf would not be a good president, because he would never be a president.

Gandalf took over Saruman as Head of the White Council when Saruman's staff was broken; in reality Gandalf had taken over this role as soon as Saruman became traitor. Also Galadriel and others of the Council preferred Gandalf to be the head from the start ahead of Saruman when the Council first formed. The White Council is a political representation of Middle Earth, and whilst Saruman did at first lead it, much distrust crept into the minds of the Council members throughout his leadership.

As Elrond pointed out, in all matters concerned with the Ring, Gandalf had been the chief. And finally, Aragorn envied Gandalf to be their banner to lead them to victory against Mordor. Overall, Gandalf was in charge of the War of the Ring against Sauron - an entire Age of work at least.

Even Sauron, at the Black Gate through the foul Mouth of Sauron, insisted that Gandalf first and foremost be shown the tokens captured from Frodo. So Sauron recognised Gandalf to be the chief of the opposition.

There is no doubt that Gandalf is the best (save Sauron perhaps) candidate in the LOTR to govern many countries at a time, as well as other key political figures. Whilst he may never run for US president out of personal preference, it is folly to discard his capabilities over more politically manipulative machiavellian characters. In society today, machiavellian characters are loathed as evil, and eventually people read between the lines and see through it.

Formendacil, I do like your style of arguing your points effectively, without being too heated on disagreement.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is no doubt that Gandalf is the best (save Sauron perhaps) candidate in the LOTR to govern many countries at a time, as well as other key political figures.

Hmmm...Gandalf as best, followed by Sauron in your estimation? The statement is contradictory to what you have maintained throughout this thread.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Whilst he may never run for US president out of personal preference, it is folly to discard his capabilities over more politically manipulative machiavellian characters. In society today, machiavellian characters are loathed as evil, and eventually people read between the lines and see through it.

Again, from a political standpoint, you misunderstand Gandalf's capabilities. He rigidly maintained a pre-set agenda, which is the correct attitude for a missionary, but not a politician. There would be no give-and-take for Gandalf's administration, no detente which is a requirement in modern politics. Bending and swaying to political realities was not a Gandalf trait. He would want nothing to do with modern realpolitick. Intractability can be virtuous if you seek to inspire (in an almost religously zealous manner of Gandalf), but it wouldn't work during Congressional budget meetings.

As far as Machiavelli, it is required reading for most political science degrees, and he is one of the most influential political philosophers of all time. I'm quite sure if you did a poll, you'd find that most most high level politicians and heads of corporations have read The Prince (or Machiavelli's other noted work The Art of War). Please read up on Napoleon or Churchill, both whom admired Machiavelli.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hmmm...Gandalf as best, followed by Sauron in your estimation? The statement is contradictory to what you have maintained throughout this thread.

As far as Machiavelli, it is required reading for most political science degrees, and he is one of the most influential political philosophers of all time. I'm quite sure if you did a poll, you'd find that most most high level politicians and heads of corporations have read The Prince (or Machiavelli's other noted work The Art of War). Please read up on Napoleon or Churchill, both whom admired Machiavelli.

It is common for leading firms and organisations to set personaility tests which aim to identify Machiavelli and weed them out. So, whilst potentially useful in politics in a manipulative sense, I have no time for people who use evil tactics in today's society to get their way, and there is some evidence to suggest that Machiavelli are affiliated to a psychopathic mental disorder, one which affected Gollum, no doubt. Infact, Saruman and Denethor both went mad partly as a result of Machiavellenism thinking.

Sauron, of course would be a good political candidate on his record in the LOTR, as he excelled in almost all areas of government. To have built a fortress and countless armies on a massive scale which are almost unassailable in his own land is a memorable feat. His folly over not protecting the borders of Mordor more keenly, and not continuing to hunt for the Ring were his only downfalls that ruined his entire legacy. Sauron had re-emerged strong continuosly after every defeat, his empire lasting may thousands of years. For the reasons given above, though, I would not vote for him.

Saruman's empire fell almost overnight. . . .

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

It is common for leading firms and organisations to set personaility tests which aim to identify Machiavelli and weed them out. So, whilst potentially useful in politics in a manipulative sense, I have no time for people who use evil tactics in today's society to get their way, and there is some evidence to suggest that Machiavelli are affiliated to a psychopathic mental disorder, one which affected Gollum, no doubt. Infact, Saruman and Denethor both went mad partly as a result of Machiavellenism thinking..

Direct references to what you are claiming, please; otherwise, I will have to consider your claims false. Having worked with many major corporations in implementing training and hiring procedures within customer service and human resource organizations, I have never heard of a "Machiavelli test" as you assert. In addition, I have never heard that there is any such mental disorder affiliated with reading or practicing precepts propounded by Machiavelli. If that were the case, then any number of current and past great politicians, world leaders, writers, philosophers and CEO's --from John Milton to Winston Churchill -- had this mental disorder.

Again, the need for direct references are essential when making such outrageous statements.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Sauron, of course would be a good political candidate on his record in the LOTR, as he excelled in almost all areas of government. To have built a fortress and countless armies on a massive scale which are almost unassailable in his own land is a memorable feat. His folly over not protecting the borders of Mordor more keenly, and not continuing to hunt for the Ring were his only downfalls that ruined his entire legacy. Sauron had re-emerged strong continuosly after every defeat, his empire lasting may thousands of years. For the reasons given above, though, I would not vote for him.

You are contradicting prior statements, like this one:

Building an army of orcs and wargs is an achievement? In my book, anyone who abandons the forces of Good for orcs is weak and is a freak.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Saruman's empire fell almost overnight. . . .

Your idea of 'overnight' is interesting. Define what you mean by overnight. Are you aware of how long Saruman was in Orthanc?

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Direct references to what you are claiming, please; otherwise, I will have to consider your claims false. Having worked with many major corporations in implementing training and hiring procedures within customer service and human resource organizations, I have never heard of a "Machiavelli test" as you assert. In addition, I have never heard that there is any such mental disorder affiliated with reading or practicing precepts propounded by Machiavelli. If that were the case, then any number of current and past great politicians, world leaders, writers, philosophers and CEO's --from John Milton to Winston Churchill -- had this mental disorder.

Again, the need for direct references are essential when making such outrageous statements.



You are contradicting prior statements, like this one:





Your idea of 'overnight' is interesting. Define what you mean by overnight. Are you aware of how long Saruman was in Orthanc?

To summarise:-

- As an expert on Machiavellianism, you should be able to look up on the matter yourself. I do not wish to derail from the LOTR beyond this. Any psychiatrist would link Machiavellianism with such a mental disorder. That is not to say a Machiavelli = mental psychopath. The research paper below is beyond the scope of this argument for the non-scientific community here.

http://www.nswiop.nsw.edu.au/pages/e..._28_Oct_05.pdf

- Sauron did much more than build an army of orcs and wargs, he built a devastating and unassailable country of immeasurable strength that would stain the land of Mordor and the generations of inhabitants of Middle Earth for eternity.

- In the relative sense, Isengard fell overnight in comparison to the achievements of Mordor. Orthanc was in the end but a hiding place for Saruman.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

And, for what it's worth, your assertion about Denethor is rather unfair, since he took pretty much no one's counsel, and while this ended in personal despair for him, he was remarkably successful until that point at leading Gondor bravely in defence against a much more powerful enemy.

Denethor took his counsel from the Palantir, i.e. Sauron.

[Morthoron]

My, so much to reply to!

Originally Posted by Mansun

Saruman was a power deriving freak, not a capable politician. If you used his policies, you are looking at another Hitler situation. Therefore, the thread question asks if Gandalf is the best candidate to take the top job in politics on grounds of ability alone, not by who is obssessed by politics. Gandalf was a far more astitute policy maker and governor of the free people.

You ignored the context of my post, utterly failing to see what I was getting at. Your opening statement in your first post was:

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gandalf is the ultimate politician in the LOTR.

I disagreed, claiming Saruman was far more politically savvy than Gandalf, particularly from a Machiavellian point of view. That Gandalf was on the winning side does not denote that he was more accomplished politically. Gandalf was treated with mistrust in the Shire, and he certainly didn't win any points in his interactions with Denethor. Saruman and Gandalf's mission was an agenda set forth by the Valar. Gandalf chose to stick with his mission (which was apolitical on a personal level), while Saruman chose a political route to personal power.

You seem to ignore the facts regarding Saruman and his abilities, labelling him as a 'freak' (which was unnecessary) rather than acknowledging that he was revered and respected as a leader for thousands of years in the 3rd Age. That he was, in the meantime, trying to get the Ring and betray the White Council, outwitting Gandalf, poisoning Theoden, having the Gondorions gladly hand him the keys to Orthanc, deluding the Dunlenders, double-crossing Sauron and taking control of the Shire (which could be chapters right out of Machiavelli's The Prince), were all part of a political process to power (selfish and evil , certainly, but savvy nonetheless).

Your second and third statements in your opening post:

Originally Posted by Mansun

Would you vote for him as a President? Did he have the all round capabilities to govern a nation such as the US?

I answered quite simply and to the point (excuse me for quoting myself):

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Gandalf neither sought personal aggrandizement nor office for himself. He was not interested in taking down roots and he certainly did not seek dominion over others (which is why he forsook the use of the Ring). His role was to make or restore leaders, not become one, and when his task was finished he left for good (something no politician in history, not even the good ones, has done). If chosen, he would not run; if elected, he would not serve. He was a missionary or ambassador of the Valar, not a politician by definition.

Gandalf was not a politician. Gandalf did not seek power. Gandalf would not be a king or president or rajah or prime minister. Again, he was a missionary for the Valar, and public office would be anathema to him as that would be a personal goal and not part of his mission; therefore, he did not have the capabilities necessary to run a government. It would be just as silly to claim, as Durelin humorously intimated, that Tom Bombadil would be a great president; neither Gandalf nor Bombadil were interested in wielding such power, and certainly would decline the offer. Therefore, the premise does not work. You might as well have said Jesus would be a good president -- it would be equally unfounded, given that it was not Jesus's mission to claim earthly power (render unto Caesar and all that).

Originally Posted by Mansun

In my book, anyone who abandons the forces of Good for orcs is weak and is a freak.

Your attempts at character judgement have nothing to do with political ability. Stalin was very politically astute, and I don't believe anyone would put a white cowboy hat on his head. He held off Hitler with a cynical alliance until his own forces were up to speed, and that breathing space certainly saved Russia from defeat when they finally went to war against Germany. Then, just as cynically, Stalin joined "The Good Guys", won the war against Germany, and then proceeded to grab half of Europe for himself. Goodness is relative in politics (as you can see, Stalin was both a bad guy and a good guy, depending on the political situation).

Originally Posted by Mansun

I agree with the above, except the highlighted bit. Using any means necessary in politics leads to extremism and tensions within a state. I prefer perception, not deception. as fundamental in politics.

Again, your statement is relative, and is not necessarily consistent with political fact. For instance, Abraham Lincoln, who many consider the greatest U.S. president, precipitated the most costly war in U.S. history with 620,000 dead soldiers (not to mention uncounted civilian deaths). He is still hated in many southern states to this day. Certainly in hindsight one would say he did the right thing; however, at the time he was villified almost as roundly in the north as he was in the south.

In WWII FDR, Churchill and even the Pope were aware for years that the Jews were being annihilated by the Germans, but nothing was done by the allies because it did not fit into their battle plans. There was neither an outcry, nor protest. Does this then make them accomplices with the Nazis? FDR sanctioned putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps (many were U.S. born citizens); yet surprisingly, no Italian-Americans or German-Americans were treated in the same manner. Do you not find that despicable?

Is extremism from whom you consider "good guys" okay, while it is wrong in those you consider "bad guys"?

Originally Posted by Mansun

As the chief in all matters concerned with the Ring, and as Steward of Middle Earth, Gandalf the White ultimately was in charge of governing Middle Earth as a whole in the war against Sauron.

No, there was never a point where Tolkien referred to Gandalf as "Steward of Middle-earth", and he certainly was not "in charge of governing Middle-earth as a whole" ever. You seem to ignore Aragorn, Theoden, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, Thranduil, Dain and Brand.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Now, don't get me wrong... I think Gandalf is, when pressed into it, an excellent leader, but as far his actual examples of leadership go, they are very much limited to advisory capacities or else to ad hoc inspiring.

Formendacil understands Gandalf's concept of leadership. It is not to govern or lead in a political sense, it is as a mentor to kings and a missionary from the Valar. As I stated previously, when Gandalf's mission was completed, he left, and no politician in the history of the world quit when he was at the pinnacle of power.

So, no, Gandalf would not be a good president, because he would never be a president.