Which historical world leader would you equate Bush to?

[Poiuyt]

Personally, I don't think he's as bad as Hitler because he hasn't initiated genocide. But his desire and true rational for starting wars makes him worse than anyone in US history. He has the fascist lust for combining the government and big business like Mussolini. How about Napoleon? He saw himself as an emperor, and I think Bush has similar self-important feelings. And how does Cheney fit in? I'm guessing there have been times in history where a limelight-loving leader was being directed by a subordinate.

What are your thoughts?

[waiting for hope]

1. Nero...

nepotism.....enough said.

[Mister Ed]

3. I'm torn between Nero and Caligula n/t

[waiting for hope]

7. Welll....

I saw the movie (you know, the X rated one) - Chimpy just doesn't cut it as a Caligula figure, not in my mind's eye that is....eeehhhhhwwwww. That hurt.

[knight_of_the_star]

16. Nero

Caligula was nuttier than the proverbial fruitcake, Bush isn't crazy he's just incompetent and short-sighted like Nero was. For all his faults I don't think Bush is on the verge of declaring his self-deification to Congress.

[burrowowl]

18. More Nero

Caligula was more intelligent.

[sofa king]

51. I have him pegged as a Commodus.

Right down to dressing up like a gladiator. Except Commodus actually fought.

Commodus was murdered by Narcissus. Bush has Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I was thinking maybe Caligula.

[Cobalt-60]

11. I vote for llittle Bootsie

Nero's delusions of grandeur weren't quite as grand.
And Nero was just too popular, even after the fire. More like a rock star than a shrub.

[knight_of_the_star]

19. Nah

Bush isn't crazy enough. Caligula was batshit nuts.

[BrklynLiberal]

27. Caligula came to my mind first also.

The full extent of the Chimp's insanity is just not fully known to the public yet. When the truth comes out, we will all be mortified to know that someone who was that out of touch with reality had his finger on the button that could have ended the world as we know it.

[timtom]

4. Idi Amin or Baby Doc Duvalier

n/t

[TexasProgresive]

21. Amen - which is why I call him BabyBitch. n/t

[sam sarrha]

5. Lennie in 'Of Mice and Men' ..Cheney will do us the favor of ending the story

during the next canned quail hunt

[joemurphy]

6. Nicholas II and Cheney is his Rasputin n/t

[sam sarrha]

9. good one

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Mussilini

strutted about and thought he was a great leader, too.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

10. We should probably put a YET on the genocide thing.

Because we all know it's only a matter of time before he either initiates genocide or internment of Muslims.
Duckie

[smoogatz]

12. I think the comparison to Mussolini isn't all that far off.

Especially post-codpiece. Both sought to blend corporate and military power and the guise of nationalism and religion; both led their nations into disastrous wars; both were, uh, fairly unpopular toward the end of their reigns. No doubt there are other parallels.

[Subdivisions]

17. Mussolini was first to my mind also. No need for me to

elaborate on what you said.

[mediaman007]

25. I think that the Italian brand of fascism is pretty close to what

the NeoCons are practicing. I don't like the comparisons to Hitler because that's a little over the top. But Mussolini's Italy is where the corporations want us to be. The Italian citizens extracted some revenge with Benito and his mistress.

[knight_of_the_star]

13. Nero

He's just as overblown in terms of ego, incredibly suspicious of others who aren't loyal to him, and as stupid and unfit for the position he holds.

[tularetom]

14. The french king who pranced around the palace in womens clothes

He seems to like to play "dress up" an awful lot.

[JohnnyLib2]

15. One of those Holy War crusade leaders--

Sorry, I didn't retain that part of history.....

[liberal N proud]

20. Hitler

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cerridwen]

22. Edward II of England

Poor military leadership. Poor soldier.

Lazy and indecisive (bush is stubborn rather than indecisive; same coin, different side).

Surrounded himself with his favorites (Edward kept around the "low lifes" of the day, bush plays this in reverse).

Ignored the advice of his "advisers".

Lost his war.

Had an enemy (Thomas, Earl of Lancaster) executed.

[bonito]

23. The first Neanderthal

Standing on a rock throwing a bolder down at his prey slipping and having it land on his own head, well anyway it was my first thought.

[rug]

26. Ludwig the Mad

"On June 10, 1886, Ludwig was officially declared insane by the government and incapable of executing his governmental powers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_II_of_Bavaria

[nam78_two]

28. He is quite unique I think-if he is actually as stupid and illiterate as he comes across

as being.
I have read about many leadesr with similar authoritarian styles of leadership, but the bulk of them appeared to be highly intelligent individuals. He is closer to a monarch I would say-someone who attained power without ever having worked for it.

Of the ones that I have read in any detail about, I would say he is closest to Henry the VIII (there could be other monarchs who were more like him though).

[momster]

29. Hung Hsiu-ch'üan

Leader of the Tai Ping Rebellion in China, 1850's. After trying several times to pass the civil service exams, he had a nervous breakdown, during which he saw visions of God. Believing himself to be "Christ's Younger Brother", he attempted to overthrow the Manchu Emperor. His attempt was partially successful, as he achieved the "Kingdom of Heavenly Peace" centered in Nanking, with many millions of followers/worshippers. The members of his armed forces were particularly fanatical. He attempted to establish relations with European nations, based on their mutual Christianity, though his was a bizarre version indeed, and was most confused by their unwillingness to join his crusade. During his 15 year war (give or take) with the Manchu, somewhere between 20 and 30 million people were slaughtered. Heavenly Peace, indeed.

His was a theocracy, with himself as Supreme Ruler, and everything held in his hands or those of his most fanatical and devoted followers, many of whom were relatives. He became more and more isolated and religiously obscure as the kingdom disintegrated, finally dying 1861 of either poison or debauchery.

The parallels are obvious.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

30. Douglas "Wrong Way" Corrigan?

Douglas Corrigan was an aviator in the 1930s who was impressed by Charles Lindbergh's exploits and wanted to fly a plane from New York to California. Instead, he flew by mistake in the very opposite direction from New York and ended up in Ireland and earned the name "wrong way" and national notoriety for being a fuck-up.

If "Wrong Way" Corrigan's blundering had ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people and wasting half a trillion dollars, however, it would be a much closer comparison.

[otherlander]

31. Santa Anna.

Taking away the freedom he promised to his people, conquests to prove himself stronger than others in the family, and the eventual downfall (hoping) due to putting personal comforts over actual leadership.

[Greybnk48]

32. Kruschev

not well educated (although * could have been well educated), continuously embarassing his country, a mindless idealogue, dangerous, self-important and a drunk (at least I think he was). * reckless actions have always reminded me of Kruschev.

[SPKrazy]

33. Napolean?

waiting to meet his Waterloo yet?

or is Iraq his Waterloo

:shrug:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

36. Napoleon started out as the prime defender of the French revolution

He came to power and declared martial law when the King of Prussia had his army at the gates of Paris, trying to suppress the ideals of the French revolution. France was involved in a civil war/revolution and a war at its borders at the same time. Remember that Napoleon's and France's enemies were the nobility, the crown heads of Europe in Austria, England, Russia, and Prussia who were themselves worse than any Emperor and who were very afraid of the French revolution spreading to their own countries. Napoleon instituted the Napoleonic code that provided for the separation of church and state which he spread across Europe and which was very threatening to both the nobility and the church. And everywhere he went, he broke up the ghettos in which Jews had been segregated and gave them equal citizenship under the law. Napoleon was a courageous man, in fact, often putting his own life at risk at the head of his troops, especially in the earlier part of his military career. There are a great many things I admire about Napoleon, although he let power corrupt him and go to his head. He should have continued to encourage the people to take power for themselves in the countries he conquered. Unfortunately, in places like Spain, for example, the Spanish peasants were more loyal to the King and to the Church than to any revolutionary ideals.

George Bush and Napoleon, however, could not be more different in my opinion.

[Stargleamer]

34. Louix XVI

unfortunately he won't be overthrown like Louis XVI was. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on his library, the library of a man who has caused irreversable harm to this country, but made the plutocrats and their supporters quite happy.

He's also like LBJ, but LBJ at least gave a shit, and wasn't out having fun when Hurricane Betsy struck.

[Poiuyt]

43. I see some pretty big differences between Bush and Johnson

LBJ inherited a war instead of starting one. While LBJ did escalate it, the Viet Nam War troubled him so much that he chose not to run for re-election. Johnson went and visited the troops in Viet Nam and was not afraid to do so. Bush and all his people will only go to Iraq, unannounced, under the cover of darkness with their tails between their legs. LBJ cared about the little guy and had a great domestic agneda. His Great Society changed America for the better (though I think Bush is trying to undo all of that)

[stillcool]

35. I can not see Bush as a leader...

in any sense of the word. To me it seems as though he's been mis-cast in the starring role of a Broadway play. But..the tickets have already been sold, and bad as his performance may be...the show must go on!

[Bronyraurus]

37. John Major

A thoroughly mediocre talent who ran on a predecessor's record (Reagan, Thatcher) and will likely usher in a long period of opposition rule?

[sweetheart]

38. lenin nt

[Democrats_win]

39. Louis XIV who said “Après mois, le deluge!” Angry mobs are setting up the guillotine.

[Jack Rabbit]

50. Good choice

See below.

[Strelnikov_]

40. Il Duce n/t

[mahatmakanejeeves]

41. I think it's a three-way tie.

Madame Ceascescu, Enver Hoxha, and Kim Jong Il.

[Rageneau]

42. Heliogabalus

[Octafish]

53. Rev Jim Jones of Jonestown...

...were it not Bush using the Pentagon to illegally invade innocent nations for profit. So, it's Hitler.

Know your BFEE: Nazis couldn’t win WWII, so they backed Bushes.

[BlooInBloo]

44. He started his own category.

[XemaSab]

45. Was there a minor, half forgotten pope

who started a bloody crusade but stayed home drinking wine and raping nuns and altar boys? :shrug:

'Cause that would be PERFECT. :D

[Hekate]

46. Caligula --> Little Boots...

Daddy's Little War Criminal

Hekate

[133724]

47. Hummm Difficult choice....

* & Katrina





Nero & Rome.

[Jack Rabbit]

48. I have two candidates

King Louis XV of France

Apres moi, le deluge.



From Les portrait au pastel (France)

Louis reigned from 1715, when Louis XIV passed to meet his reward, until his death in 1774. His reign consorted of wasteful wars and corrupt government. Louis would often get political advice from is favorite bed mates, la Marquise de Pompadour and Mme. du Berry.

Like Bush, Louis was a tyrant who thought he was entitled by birth to all the wealth and power he possessed. Like Bush, he abused the power and squandered the wealth.

Louis was unpopular as King and his death was celebrated by the French people. The decadence of his reign left a bad taste in everyone's mount that was purged less than twenty years later in the French Revolution.


Leonid Brezhnev, Chairman of the Communist Party and President of the Soviet Union



From Bettman Archives by way of Encarta


Brezhnev became chairman of the Soviet Communist Party in the palace coup that toppled his predecessor, Nikita Khrushchev, in 1964. During a period of collective leadership that followed, the office of Premier, also held by Khrushchev, was given to Alexei Kosygin. By the early seventies, Brezhnev had eclipsed Kosygin in power and influence. US President Nixon and his successor through President Carter dealt with the Soviet Union through Brezhnev, who was eventually given the ceremonial office of President.

Like Louis XV and George W. Bush, Brezhnev involved his country in a series of wasteful and unnecessary military adventures, culminating in the disastrous Afghan War. As under Bush, government corruption was rampant, the national currency was worthless and kept propped up with gimmicks, favoritism to party members was exhibited openly and arms spending reached absurd levels.

Like Bush, Brezhnev was an authoritarian tyrant with little regard of r human rights. Also like Bush, Brezhnev was a 20 watt blub who thought more highly of himself than did any one else. He wore a chest full of medals on his business suit (see photo), most of them awarded by himself.

Brezhnev died in 1982, after spending eighteen years ruining the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union itself survived Brezhnev by less than ten years.

[0rganism]

49. In 20 years, people will be comparing their lousy leaders to Bush...

Meanwhile, I'm at a bit of a loss to find those in the history of the planet who has ruled in such a gladhanded, nepotistic, and careless manner. Never before have we seen such grave concerns combine with such great opportunities for healing and progress, and rarer still is the halfwit coward of a leader who can make a mockery of those same concerns while squandering every opportunity for improvement, yet semi-successfully apotheosize himself as a hero of the common people. The worse the disasters that befall us, the greater the threats that loom, the less he cares, and the greater we deem his heroism thereby.

I might suggest Commodus, but he was at least an educated man who knew something (if not enough) of war. It is difficult to find a satisfactory analog in history, partly because it is difficult to find such an apathetic and willfully ignorant population in a nominal democracy.

The problem here is that we're really off the maps with this guy. There have been horrible leaders in the past, but their consequences were muted by their inability to threaten the entire biosphere. Similarly, there have been truly evil leaders in the recent past who might well have gone so far as to threaten life as we know it, but they tend to suffer from a surplus of competence relative to the abilities of W.

[pinto]

52. Nicholas I of Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_I_of_Russia

Early life and road to power

Nicholas was not brought up to be the Emperor of Russia as he had two elder brothers before him. As such in 1825, when Alexander I suddenly died, Nicholas was caught in between swearing allegiance to his second eldest brother Constantine Pavlovich and accepting the throne for himself. During the confusion where his brother Constantine rejected the offer to the throne and Nicholas not wanting to hastily accept the throne, a plot was hatched by Nicholas's enemies to overthrow Nicholas and to usurp power. This led to the Decembrist Revolt in December of 1825 where Nicholas almost lost his life but in the end was successful in suppressing the revolt.


Emperor and Principles

Nicholas completely lacked his brother's spiritual and intellectual breadth; he saw his role simply as one paternal autocrat ruling his people by whatever means were necessary. Having experienced the trauma of the Decembrist Revolt, Nicholas I was determined to restrain Russian society. A secret police, the Third Section of Imperial Chancellery, ran a huge network of spies and informers with the help of Gendarmes. The government exercised censorship and other controls over education, publishing, and all manifestations of public life. In 1833 the minister of education, Sergey Uvarov, devised a program of "autocracy, Orthodoxy, and nationality" as the guiding principle of the regime. The people were to show loyalty to the unlimited authority of the tsar, to the traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church, and, in a vague way, to the Russian nation. These principles did not gain the support of the population but instead led to repression in general and to suppression of non-Russian nationalities and religions in particular. For example, the government suppressed the Uniate Church in Ukraine and Belarus in 1839. See also Cantonists.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Marie "Let them eat cake" Antionette.

[pinniped]

55. Monkeyboy can't be Nero, he's tooooooo stupid to know what a lyre is.

.

[momster]

56. What?

He employs lots of liars....(sorry.)

[leftofthedial]

57. Mussolini

or Nero