Has any powerful ruler in history actually been genuinely, actively idealistic?

This is true. Brutal leaders kill hundreds of thousands to fight for their worldview. Look at Lincoln for instance. Good cause. Still killed a fuckton of people.

>The stupid thing is that some people will probably believe Trump, he is the master of denying reality.
I would have loved to drink your tears on nov 8 2016

I was delighted.

People who are genuinely idealistic and come to power quickly realize they have to come to terms with the grand chessboard that was established way back in the Bronze Age. It goes hand in hand with civilization itself.

They also have to come to terms with that the entire establishment expects them to play chess - or else.

That's basically how you get Stalins.

Of course they are aware of this. Here's the thing that isn't as well understood.

Idealistic people are much more willing to sacrifice themselves to obtain victory than merely pragmatic or power hungry people. Here's a scenario that plays out.

>Suppose while in battle, a general encounters an entire train filled with a nation's gold reserves.
>Does the general pocket the money for himself, thus securing his power and wealth for the future?
>Or does he surrender it to his government thus strengthening his cause at the expense of impoverishing himself?

Because that's exactly what Stalin did when the opportunity presented itself. He literally gave up the Russian Gold supply to the government rather than take his commission. Comparatively, a modern 'russian' leader would find a way to enrich himself for his service to the government rather than support his nation.

Ideologues fight harder, fight longer, and with less resources. They are far more dangerous than the selfish.

>pakistan
>ambivalent
they are china's cocksleeves, same as sri lanka

Your scenario works as long as the idealist is in tune with the central power.

Many corrupt people think they serve some greater purpose or are part of a greater cause. They think it would be better for them to control that money than let it "go to waste". It's often driven by idealism itself.

This is essentially how rebels and underground movements are born.

Take Putin for example, he'd probably think that it's better for him to pocket some cash for the greater good of Russia than let it go to some oligarch.

Rebellious regions or people might put some revenue aside for themselves instead of giving it all up to the central authority.

>Or does he surrender it to his government because they would find out anyway and he would be severely punished for it, instead of handing it in while getting a big reward and lots of applause for his uprightness

Now this is true. The Ego DOES get in the way of success. But that is a different spectrum unrelated to idealism. You can have nihilistic egoists like Brezhnev or idealistic egoists like Mao.

Ego is a different beast all together.

Then again, there are also dumb idealists and and smart idealists, which is yet a third spectrum that has to be considered. And the world is far full of more dumb idealists than smart idealists.

But honestly I can't think of a good president who wasn't an idealist at the core.

>Muh Nixon.

Nixon fucking gave up the 1960 election because he was afraid that if he contested the election, the Soviets would've taken advantage of the situation.

Stalin at this stage was a very independent warlord who could've gotten away with what he wanted. He routinely disobeyed Lenin even though Lenin highly respected him. There are other examples of Stalin obeying 'idealism' such as his refusal to retreat from Moscow or his desire to let his own son die from being inadequate.

...

t. Stalin

Communists

Reddit

Lincoln didn't kill anyone for his views, he just took the chance of abolishing slavery during the war of southern agression

Posts like this often make me wonder, do conservatives actually have an ideology beyond trying to upset liberals?

The Grachi Brothers seemed earnest and knew they'd likely die. The later Populares, not so much.

Frederick the Great
>proponent of enlightened absolutism
>modernized the Prussian bureaucracy and civil service
>reformed the judicial system and made it possible for men not of noble stock to become judges and senior bureaucrats
>supported arts and philosophers
>allowed complete freedom of the press and literature
All he wanted to do was be a musician and philosopher but became king because it was his duty.

he fucked niggas up too, though, right? Tell me my boy Fred was a slugger

>W-W-Well we won a popularity contest!
>N-not like we actually won the popular vote o-or whatever....

only if he was an idiot, insane or a puppet
when idealism exists in any person, i think it's a coping mechanism to distract yourself from the brutal, meaningless nature of reality where you are expected to compete over scraps of meat and dirt.

tips fedora

Joseph II of Habsburg.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

In Hungary he and Maria Theresa are still regarded as the epitome of enlightened absolutism. But he comes across as more idealistic which resulted in most of his edict being revoked almost immediately after his death.

I would also argue that Frederick II was also a great example.

It's true though, he personally didn't authorize shit.

Even though he wasn't able to truly seize power, I'd argue Huey Long believed in his ideals.

>Lenin
lol