I dunno man, Frederick the Great was pretty great, as was Augustus Caesar. So clearly there are "right leaders". It seems the problem is more about when one gets a good leader, how to keep getting good leaders afterwards when the good one dies or retires. Corporations have solved this pretty well--IBM has lasted longer than many governments, and there are plenty of other examples.
FtG was effective -- at starting wars and killing people to further his own dynastic ambitions. People who wanted to live in peace and prosperity would not agree he was the "right leader"
Well sure, George Washington was a very violent fellow as well but I usually don't see that levied against him. Same with Winston Churchill. You might want to learn more about Frederick, here's a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_The_Great
Is that the only thing? Regarding Augustus in particular, the Pax Romana is very strongly associated with him. Funny how with strong leaders who wield power and hold responsibility, even given some initial violence things can turn out pretty swell. Dr. Francia is an interesting smaller-scale example. http://books.google.com/books?id=-yeaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA547#v... By the way, is it funny how many fairly popular (considering none have been extremely popular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_president...) US presidents there are whose prior claim to fame is more or less being a victorious fighter?
yeah, but my point wasn't how good or bad any of them were, My point was that wartime leaders seem to get "remembered" or "revered" more so than peacetime leaders. I wasn't trying to judge great/non-great leaders. Besides, the fact that you don't like Lincoln is vastly overshadowed by the fact that he has an enormous frickin marble monument made out to him, that civilizations 2000 years from now will come and stare at in awe. Just like they do today.. it's just not a ruin yet, and his history is still relatively close in time.
