The best leaders that your country has never had?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Which people (especially, but not only, politicians) do you think could have made excellent leaders (kings, presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, et cetera) for your country if they would have actually had an opportunity to lead your country? As in, who do you think were the best leaders that your country has never had?

For the record, whatever candidates you propose for this actually needed to have a realistic path to power at some point in time. As in, please don't nominate someone who never actually had a realistic path to power.

Anyway, in the pre-1991 US context, I would probably say James G. Blaine and Charles Evans Hughes. The former extremely narrowly lost the US Presidency in 1884 while the latter extremely narrowly lost the US Presidency in 1916. Both were prominent, talented, and accomplished men--with Blaine previously serving as Speaker of the US House of Representatives and, briefly, as US Secretary of State (as well as a much longer stint as SecState after his 1884 loss) while Hughes previously served as Governor of New York and as an Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court (and also as SecState and again as an Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court after his 1916 loss). Blaine strikes me as being more ambitious than Grover Cleveland was; indeed, Blaine certainly hoped to have a larger role for the US in Pan-American affairs, with him trying to mediate the conflict between Chile and Peru back when he was briefly SecState under President Garfield (before Garfield got assassinated and Blaine's SecState tenure came to an end). Meanwhile, I think and hope that Hughes would have done a better job of managing the US entry into World War I (especially on the home front) as well as of handling the post-World War I peace talks and aftermath than Woodrow Wilson was in real life. Had Hughes won in 1916, it's possible that the US would have avoided the worst aspects of its isolationism later on and instead remained relatively engaged in European affairs in the 1920s, 1930s, and beyond.

What are your thoughts on this question of mine?
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,513
Japan
Brian Clough- convinced he could have won us a World Cup, or at least a final.

Edward of Woodstock, who should have been Edward IV. Died early and before his time but wood have been as strong and solid a king as Edward III.

Controversial idea maybe- Enoch Powell? He wasn’t a racist as claimed by some.. but he definitely had the Countries best interests at heart. We’d not have our current issues....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,175
Sydney
None outstanding as yet , it still is a work in progress from a very low base

a mention for Robert Askin who in a mighty effort took the lead in being the most openly corrupt premier of the state of NSW

it was said about him that while Einstein established that the universe was curved
Askin proved that New South Wales was bend
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,186
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Modern Italy is a very odd country about this.

First of all its history is divided in two parts: the Kingdom and the Republic.

Regarding the Kingdom, my opinion is that the medal of best leader is contended between Camilllo Benso Cavour and Giovanni Giolitti. Cavour literally built modern Italy [he was Prime Minister when in 1861 the Kingdom was born and he kept on saying that Rome had to become the Capital: Rome would have been conquered 9 years later in 1870 and Rome became Capital in 1871, but Cavour was already died]. Giolitti was the most talented Prime Minister of the Kingdom [according to the large majority of historians] and his figure has even given the name to a period ... "the Giolitti era".

About the Republic ... it's a mess: everybody would indicate this or that leader according to the political orientation ...
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,560
Las Vegas, NV USA
Not to disparage Abe Lincoln, but his main Republican rival for the nomination could have been a good president for the times. Lincoln served only one term in the House at the federal level before he was elected president. William Seward served as governor of New York and as a US Senator. before becoming Lincoln's Secretary of State. He was an abolitionist. Lincoln was not.

Clearly the South would have seceded if he were elected president. One could argue whether an abolitionist could have been elected but assuming he was I think he would have been relentless in winning the Civil War on his terms. We wouldn't have the Gettysburg Address but he might have bought Alaska sooner and made it a state since he wouldn't likely have Kentucky. :freeze:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Not to disparage Abe Lincoln, but his main Republican rival for the nomination could have been a good president for the times. Lincoln served only one term in the House at the federal level before he was elected president. William Seward served as governor of New York and as a US Senator. before becoming Lincoln's Secretary of State. He was an abolitionist. Lincoln was not.

Clearly the South would have seceded if he were elected president. One could argue whether an abolitionist could have been elected but assuming he was I think he would have been relentless in winning the Civil War on his terms. We wouldn't have the Gettysburg Address but he might have bought Alaska sooner and made it a state since he wouldn't likely have Kentucky. :freeze:
Are you suggesting that Kentucky would have seceded under Seward?