Gandalf for President?

Gandalf is the ultimate politician in the LOTR. Would you vote for him as a President? Did he have the all round capabilities to govern a nation such as the US?

[Rumil]

I'd vote for Gandalf for anything!

Probably he woudn't be interested and would prefer wandering around behind the scenes, generally doing good and inspiring great deds. An eminence grise perhaps?

Though if they reckon McCain's a bit old Gandalf has no chance!

I have a feeling Gandalf would employ much the same war and anti-terrorism policies that Bush used. Gandalf certainly was gung-ho in challenging an enemy with battle.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I have a feeling Gandalf would employ much the same war and anti-terrorism policies that Bush used. Gandalf certainly was gung-ho in challenging an enemy with battle.

I'm afraid of getting in too deep here... this is dangerously close to politics...

But it seems only fair to point out that Gondor and Rohan were in rather different situations than the U.S. of the past decade. Whether you think Bush right or wrong with his war efforts, one cannot deny that the U.S., the "world's remaining superpower" charging off preemptively into the Middle East is rather different than Gandalf attempting to stem the tide of despair in the invaded nations of Gondor and Rohan and rouse them to a defence.

I'd say there's a lot more of Churchill in Gandalf as far that goes than Bush (though, mindful of my reputation elsewhere, let me affirm that I do not see any allegory betwixt them), insofar as an outnumbered Britain was alone and under attack.

In any case, lest there be any doubt that Gandalf is not a war-mongerer, take a look at his attempts to stop battle occurring in The Hobbit. Though he failed, due to the arrival of the goblins and wargs, chiefly, take note of his attempt nonetheless.

Oh, and I would definitely not vote for Gandal. As he made quite clear himself with the Ring, power would make him all too dark and terrible.

[Morthoron]

Actually, Gandalf was not the ultimate politician, Saruman was. 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.

Saruman, on the other hand, represented the political animal in all its sordid manifestations. He had the mesmerizing voice of a demagogue and was practiced at the art of propaganda. He created his own grass-roots constituency in Isengard, manipulated Rohan, deceived Dunland, betrayed the White Council, double-dealt his power-broker in Mordor, and set up a dictatorship in the banana republic of the Shire for his retirement.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Actually, Gandalf was not the ultimate politician, Saruman was .

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.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Saruman was not a 'freak'; Morthoron shows examples of Saruman's political behaviour where he achieved much with the resources he had. As for the Hitler thing, bringing him up is likely to annoy someone out there, but implying that Hitler was not a capable politician is just strange.

But we're speaking about modern US politics. Saruman would feel far more at home there. Gandalf would despise the way image and slander are more important than the actual governing of people's lives.

Where so much power is concerned Gandalf would wish the wise to govern, and not the greedy rich. This suggests that Gandalf would not be interested in promoting democracy, at least to me.

[Durelin]

I would vote for Tom Bombadil.

I'm sorry, but this thread just feels like a jab to stir up political tension. Yes, we know a presidential election is coming up...

However, Eomer brings up a very interesting point about Gandalf with which I very much agree - Gandalf would not support even a pseudo-democratic-republic thingy...I mean, what was one of his big missions? To restore a wise king to the throne of Gondor. Conveniently a blood heir and benevolent.

(As for some things that have been said, I'm not sure we're discussing "modern US politics" or the "modern US media"...one may present the other and define the other in many ways, but there's a lot more to anything/anyone beyond a face... But no, I am not discussing politics! Noooo, did I take the bait??)

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Saruman was not a 'freak'; Morthoron shows examples of Saruman's political behaviour where he achieved much with the resources he had. As for the Hitler thing, bringing him up is likely to annoy someone out there, but implying that Hitler was not a capable politician is just strange.

Gandalf's policies easily outwitted those of Saruman's. Can you give me any examples of what Saruman actually achieved? 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.

I totally imply that Hitler was a poor politician as much as Sauron would have been, if put in line with the context of this thread, as good ones always succeed, and always have bearings for the forces of Good. It is far easier to raise havoc as an evil leader of state using evil policies. I do not wish to liken a good politician with evil designs, however capable. This thread aimed to promote the forces of Good in Middle Earth, namely Gandalf. If you do not like this, please PM me with your thoughts. No more will be said further here.

Effectively, is Gandalf the best candidate we could have ever had to lead the US? Was he the ultimate Good politician?

[Kitanna]

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.

But the ability to gain power like that can make a good politician. Power hungry or not Saruman would have made a better politician than Gandalf. Many distrusted Gandalf. The Hobbits found him a disturber of the peace, Grima, with Saruman's help, had Rohan convinced he was Stormcrow, Denethor was never thrilled with his presence. And it didn't bother him. He could be hated as long as he got the job done. As far as politicians go that's not what they want to strive for. Saruman and Sauron are both far superior as politicians. They could bend themselves into looking fair so people would follow them. Being a politician involves getting people to follow and support you, regardless of the ends. Gandalf was unbending in his ways and that makes a poor politician.

Can you give me any examples of what Saruman actually achieved? 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.

He convinced Gandalf not to act on the Ring issue in the Shire. And Gandalf followed as if Saruman was a politician because he trusted Saruman's leadership.

Originally Posted by Kitanna

But the ability to gain power like that can make a good politician. Power hungry or not Saruman would have made a better politician than Gandalf. Many distrusted Gandalf. The Hobbits found him a disturber of the peace, Grima, with Saruman's help, had Rohan convinced he was Stormcrow, Denethor was never thrilled with his presence. And it didn't bother him. He could be hated as long as he got the job done. As far as politicians go that's not what they want to strive for. Saruman and Sauron are both far superior as politicians. They could bend themselves into looking fair so people would follow them. Being a politician involves getting people to follow and support you, regardless of the ends. Gandalf was unbending in his ways and that makes a poor politician.


He convinced Gandalf not to act on the Ring issue in the Shire. And Gandalf followed as if Saruman was a politician because he trusted Saruman's leadership.

You liken deception and persuasion with achievement. Personally, I would not. Gandalf had his doubts on this subject all along.

Ganadlf was not liked, at times, during the war against Sauron. But who ran out as comfortable triumphant at the end, more liked as ever before? Aragorn would have made him the chief advisor to Gondor, if he could.

[Kitanna]

Politics usually are about deception though. It's about getting people to follow you in any way possible regardless of how you do it. Successfully winning people to your side is at the heart of politics. Sauron and Saruman both did that. They successfully convinced many to follow them, giving them the upper hand against those who weren't as skillful at swaying the crowd.

Originally Posted by Kitanna

Politics usually are about deception though. It's about getting people to follow you in any way possible regardless of how you do it. Successfully winning people to your side is at the heart of politics. Sauron and Saruman both did that. They successfully convinced many to follow them, giving them the upper hand against those who weren't as skillful at swaying the crowd.

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.

[Nerwen]

It seems to me that there is a bit of semantical confusion going on here.

I believe Mansun is saying that Gandalf would have made a good politician while others are saying that Saruman would have made (indeed, was) a good politician.

You're talking about two different things.

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Aragorn would have made him the chief advisor to Gondor, if he could.

Yep, and I think this is a good thing to point out. I see Gandalf as an advisor, not a leader. He's the behind-the-scenes guy. He manipulates when he needs to, to make sure those who are the leaders, I guess the politicians in this discussion, are doing what they should within a greater plan.

Oh semantics...yes, I think Mansun means 'good politician' as equivalent to 'good leader'?

Originally Posted by Nerwen

It seems to me that there is a bit of semantical confusion going on here.

I believe Mansun is saying that Gandalf would have made a good politician while others are saying that Saruman would have made (indeed, was) a good politician.

You're talking about two different things.

I can see why the confusion started out, but I could not imagine anyone adovcating a vote for Saruman on his record, and amongst other excellent candidates. Gandalf, afterall, was the Steward of Middle Earth, and an astonishingly good one, using ambition with a conscience.

Who would you vote for, Nerwen? I would think it a toss of the coin between Gandalf the White, and Elrond. Sauron and Saruman lose out due to ultimately delivering poor results in the LOTR. In pure political terms though, Sauron probably comes up top.

[Groin Redbeard]

Of course I would vote for Gandalf if he was the only candidate running, but I do believe that others would be more suitable to be President. After all to quote Gandalf: "He is a moss gatherer and I am a stone doomed to rolling." I think that the media would have a field day with this statement and demonize poor Gandalf so that Grima Wormtongue wins the election! Damn the media!!

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I can see why the confusion started out, but I could not imagine anyone adovcating a vote for Saruman on his record, and amongst other excellent candidates. Gandalf, afterall, was the Steward of Middle Earth, and an astonishingly good one, using ambition with a conscience.

Who would you vote for, Nerwen? I would think it a toss of the coin between Gandalf the White, and Elrond. Sauron and Saruman lose out due to ultimately delivering poor results in the LOTR. In pure political terms though, Sauron probably comes up top.

If all I had was "public knowledge" on which to base a vote, I'd probably be voting Saruman in the Middle-earth elections.

Now, I realise we all know, after the fact what a sleaze-ball he is... but let's pretend we know as much as Gandalf himself did--right before he got locked up.

Saruman:

-was trusted by Manwë to lead the Istari
-was trusted by the Stewards, good Middle-earth's superpower, to govern Orthanc.
-helped build the White Council, and won its leadership.
-Actually led the White Council to victory over Sauron, kicking him out of Mirkwood.

Never mind that he is clearly marked as the most naturally gifted orator in Middle-earth, though by the time we show up in the pages of the Lord of the Rings, he's stopped talking about anything we should listen to.

So, if you're asking who, as an insider who knows what everyone in Middle-earth is like... I'd say Aragorn.

But if you're asking about who Joe Rohirrim on the streets knows... Saruman has a compelling case.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

If all I had was "public knowledge" on which to base a vote, I'd probably be voting Saruman in the Middle-earth elections.

Now, I realise we all know, after the fact what a sleaze-ball he is... but let's pretend we know as much as Gandalf himself did--right before he got locked up.

Saruman:

-was trusted by Manwë to lead the Istari
-was trusted by the Stewards, good Middle-earth's superpower, to govern Orthanc.
-helped build the White Council, and won its leadership.
-Actually led the White Council to victory over Sauron, kicking him out of Mirkwood.

Never mind that he is clearly marked as the most naturally gifted orator in Middle-earth, though by the time we show up in the pages of the Lord of the Rings, he's stopped talking about anything we should listen to.

So, if you're asking who, as an insider who knows what everyone in Middle-earth is like... I'd say Aragorn.

But if you're asking about who Joe Rohirrim on the streets knows... Saruman has a compelling case.

Saruman's record beyond this point goes downhill alarmingly. It is wiser to consider his case through his entire life in the history of Middle Earth up until his death.

I could list quite a few achievements that support Gandalf the White:-

- Advising the masterplan that the Ring be sent to Mordor to be destroyed by a
Hobbit;
- Leading Rohan to victory over Isengard at Helm's Deep;
- Casting down the traitor Saruman from the Order of the Istari;
- Preventing the Witch King from entering Minas Tirith;
- Outwitting Sauron by challenging Mordor at the Black Gate, allowing Frodo time
and space to complete his quest;

In short, Gandalf has the best record for policy making and governing in Middle Earth, although Sauron of course ran him close in almost all matters.

Any votes for the skulking Gollum the Great? Lord Smeagol? I rate him as the most original character ever created.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Saruman's record beyond this point goes downhill alarmingly. It is wiser to consider his case through his entire life in the history of Middle Earth up until his death.

Well as far as DEATH goes... there's a whole host of dead people we're not voting for anymore... Abe Lincoln... Winston Churchill... Charles de Gaulle.

I'm taking Saruman in context, when he was "on the ballot", basically.

Originally Posted by Mansun

I could list quite a few achievements that support Gandalf the White:-

- Advising the masterplan that the Ring be sent to Mordor to be destroyed by a
Hobbit;
- Leading Rohan to victory over Isengard at Helm's Deep;
- Casting down the traitor Saruman from the Order of the Istari;
- Preventing the Witch King from entering Minas Tirith;
- Outwitting Sauron by challenging Mordor at the Black Gate, allowing Frodo time
and space to complete his quest;

The thing is though... most of those are not the actions of mandated ruler, but rather the actions of a capable advisor and/or organiser, and while those people are invaluable to the smooth operation of a country, they are not Presidents/Kings/etc.

And as far as casting Saruman from the order goes... they had orders from Head Office. Manwë fired Saruman and Gandalf got his job. Or, if you take it as "fight of the fittest" then it's more a case of Gandalf being stronger--not a better leader.

In short, Gandalf has the best record for policy making and governing in Middle Earth, although Sauron of course ran him close in almost all matters.

Except that, as my point is, Gandalf never actually governed. The only office of authority he ever holds is "the White Wizard" and by this point the order consists of him and a delinquent Radagast...

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.

Gandalf is more of a general than a president.

Or a bureaucrat.

I think he'd probably make an awesome civil servant.

But a President? (Or other comparable office-holder)

No.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Except that, as my point is, Gandalf never actually governed. The only office of authority he ever holds is "the White Wizard" and by this point the order consists of him and a delinquent Radagast...

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.

[Formendacil]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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]

Originally Posted by Mansun

- As an expert on Machiavellenism, you should be able to look up on the matter yourself. I do not wish to derail from the LOTR beyond this. .

I am not an expert on Machiavelli; however, I have read his works (have you?), and am quite aware of the profound and ongoing effect he has had on modern politics. I will take your inability to provide proper citations as an admission that you are unable to do so.

Originally Posted by Mansun

- - 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.

Sauron also lost nearly every major war he was associated with. So much for strategy. *shrugs*

Originally Posted by Mansun

- - In the relative sense, Isengard fell overnight in comparison to the achievements of Mordor.

In a relative sense, Gondor and Rohan are younger than Mordor. We are talking about centuries in any case, and terming something 'overnight' is not the best definition of hundreds of years, even in a relative sense. *shrugs again*

P.S. I notice you added an edit onto last your quote:

Originally Posted by Manusun

Any psychiatrist would link Machiavellianism with such a mental disorder. That is not to say a Machiavelli = mental psychopath.

Nice trying to cover your tracks; however, any psychiatrist could link Christianity, drinking water or collecting stamps to mental disorders (depending on how one manipulates the facts). For instance 100% of murderers breathe; therefore, there is a direct link between breathing and murder. You made an outrageous statement that you cannot back up with direct references. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I am not an expert on Machiavelli; however, I have read his works (have you?), and am quite aware of the profound and ongoing effect he has had on modern politics. I will take your inability to provide proper citations as an admission that you are unable to do so.

See updates above.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mansun

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

That's like saying that the White House takes its counsel from the CIA... if the CIA were unable to talk, composed of no people, and only capable of handing reports to the president that were taken down by agents in the field.

Now, I'm not saying that Sauron didn't influence Denethor. As far as that goes, Napoleon influenced Wellington, Pompey influenced Caesar, and Saladin influenced Richard the Lionheart. It's the definition of enemies to affect each other. If they didn't, they wouldn't be enemies, but mutually exclusive non-relations.

Just because Sauron had the power to make sure that what Denethor saw in the palantír appeared overwhelming and invincible does not mean that Denethor took counsel with Sauron! Quite the contrary: in spite of seeing this sort of doom and gloom for years thanks the limited intelligence the palantír was able to afford him, Denethor persisted in holding Gondor steady against assault and only failed in hope after the death of Boromir--more a personal tragedy affecting his mental health, as it would any father's, than a deliberate success on Sauron's part.

It's a pity, really, that we only get to see Denethor at the very end, after all the doom appears to be coming true, after Boromir is dead, and after Gandalf shows up. After all, while we know Gandalf as a pretty good guy, his personality is such that it's no surprise he rubs some people the wrong way, and Denethor is clearly one of them. Gandalf's arrival, while good for the city and necessary for its ultimate survival, probably did more than anything to precipitate Denethor's final collapse.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

That's like saying that the White House takes its counsel from the CIA... if the CIA were unable to talk, composed of no people, and only capable of handing reports to the president that were taken down by agents in the field.

The CIA vs the Palantir is an impossible analogy.

Denethor's entire mind and thoughts behind his plans were a direct result of what he saw in the Palantir. Sauron broke Denethor's mind through forseeing doom in the Palantir, submitting deadly fear and submission in the heart of Minas Tirith.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Just because Sauron had the power to make sure that what Denethor saw in the palantír appeared overwhelming and invincible does not mean that Denethor took counsel with Sauron!

You have jumped about a google of steps further than what I originally meant. The visions Denethor saw in the Palantir were the works of Sauron, hence all of Denethor's thinking was indirectly under the control (but not command) of Sauron. I did not advocate that Denethor spoke with Sauron, and although I was quite vague, I am still suprised you were not able to read between the lines:-

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

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mansun

The CIA vs the Palantir is an impossible analogy.

Oh, I rather doubt that, myself. Both are, really, just sources of intelligence--well, and communication as the Palantíri were originally used, but not at the time of Denethor--which is hardly a misanalogy.

Originally Posted by Mansun

You have jumped about a google of steps further than what I originally meant. The visions Denethor saw in the Palantir were the works of Sauron, hence all of Denethor's thinking was indirectly under the control (but not command) of Sauron. I did not advocate that Denethor spoke with Sauron, and although I was quite vague, I am still suprised you were not able to read between the lines:-

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

In that case I fear you have misapplied the word "counsel", because to take counsel is to take advice from. The Palantír is not a sentient object, so it cannot give advice, which left me with the only interpretation that Sauron was giving advice to Denethor--whether solicited or otherwise, and refuting that was clearly my position.

Now, you say that Denethor did not speak with Sauron... to which I agree, but I take that to further mean that Denethor did not then take his counsel from Sauron. Denethor kept his own counsel, as I have already averred, and Sauron was not offering advice--he was feeding Denethor false intelligence, to use the more modern phrasing. Granted, over the course of the years this broke down Denethor's spirit, and Denethor should have known better than the use the Palantír, which they had stopped using after the fall of Minas Ithil for good reason... but understanding the word "counsel" as I do, it is entirely a misconstruction to say that Denethor took his counsel from the Palantír or, through it, Sauron. Rather, he constructed his counsel on the basis of the false information Sauron fed him through it.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

In that case I fear you have misapplied the word "counsel", because to take counsel is to take advice from. The Palantír is not a sentient object, so it cannot give advice, which left me with the only interpretation that Sauron was giving advice to Denethor--whether solicited or otherwise, and refuting that was clearly my position.

The Palantir cannot give advice in the common sense, but Denethor could still use it to draw counsel from what he saw through it. Indirectly, the Palantir, hence Sauron, was dictating the mind and actions of Denethor into submission.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

See updates above.

Replied in kind above. Again, please cite references, or quit offering your opinions as facts.

P.S. Another late edit found here:

Originally Posted by Mansun

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

Interestingly, the Machiavellian Scale has nothing to do with a mental disorder, nor is it a test corporations use in qualifying candidates (having administered such employee screening tests, I can tell you corporations are more interested in theft than Machiavellianism); of course, you would understand that if you had read the summation of the paper you cited, which states "is thus far theoretical, and awaits empirical testing". As a matter of fact, anyone can take a "Mach IV Test" to see if they are Machiavellian. Most people fall in the middle of the scale (so even you, Mansun, have quite a bit of Machiavelli in you, I am sure). It is found here:

http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/13/machtest/

High Machs constitute a distinct type: charming, confident and glib, but also arrogant, calculating and cynical, prone to manipulate and exploit....
True low Machs, however, can be kind of dependent, submissive and socially inept.

Hmmm...I would not want to be a Low Mach, would you?

Not surprisingly, persons with a High Mach score are neither sociopaths nor psycopaths, and tend to make outstanding politicians and corporate CEO's (it also represents the vast majority of political leaders from the U.S. and Britain for the past couple centuries -- whether you rate them good or bad on your Barometric Indices of Character Habits).

Needless to say the term Machiavellianism in the psychological sense is a convenient name (like Lou Gehrig's disease) to place on a test of people's demeanor.

[Gwathagor]

Hmmm.

The Istari were strictly forbidden to govern or rule over the Children of Illuvatar, and so the holding of a political office such as the presidency would be out of the question for a dutiful wizard like Gandalf. He would probably turn down the presidency if we offered it to him. However, the fact that he would have no aspirations to political power would make him the only safe candidate, as most politicians are exactly the opposite. Because of his unwillingness to play the politics game, and because of his lack of interest in power, he would likely not be elected.

But, if the impossible happened, and Gandalf not only was elected but accepted the presidency, I have no doubt that he would be a wise and just leader.

On another note, P.J.'s team must have seen something of Churchill's position and policies in Gandalf as well, given the wizard's near direct quoting of Winston at the end of TTT (albeit with the locations changed).

[Groin Redbeard]

You make some good points, Gwathagor. Although the Istari aren't allowed to govern people they are allowed to council and advice them. So maybe we should downgrade Gandalf to Secretary of State or Defense. What do you say?

[Gwathagor]

Yes, I'm certain he'd feel more at home on the cabinet.