https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=TaylorH&feedformat=atomConservapedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T12:31:50ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.24.2https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=899628Fairness Doctrine2011-08-11T04:31:48Z<p>TaylorH: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''fairness doctrine''' was a policy of the U. S. [[Federal Communications Commission]] from 1949 until 1987. Daniel Henninger wrote in the ''Wall Street Journal, <br />
{{Cquote|[[Ronald Reagan]] tore down this wall (the Fairness Doctrine) in 1987... and [[Rush Limbaugh]] was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the [[East Germany]] of [[liberal media]] domination.” <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/p_hollrah/06262007.htm The Nazification of the American Left], Paul R. Hollrah, ''New Media Journal'', June 26, 2007.</ref>}}<br />
The doctrine required broadcasters who aired material on controversial issues to provide "equal time" for the expression of opposing views. The net result was censorship, since broadcasters simply refrained from airing public affairs programing.<br />
<br />
==Opposition to mandated fairness==<br />
One recurring criticism of this requirement was that it had the effect of limiting broadcast-media treatment of certain controversial subjects. <ref>Doris A. Garber, "Mass Media and American Politics" (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1980), p. 93. Garber found that "the media frequently shy away from programs dealing with controversial public issues to avoid demands to air opposing views in place of revenue-producing programs.'' </ref> <br />
<br />
Under [[FCC]] regulations, however, the media could avoid the problem of furnishing additional air-time for opposing views if they included opposing views on the issues in their regular news programming. The courts tended to side with radio and television media if they can bring forth reasonably good evidence of "fairness" in the coverage.<br />
<br />
One effect of its demise was to open the doors to today's political "talk radio," previously inhibited by stations' concerns that they would be required to give time to opposing views. Liberals such as Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) have tried to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives fear it will cost them their dominance of talk radio. <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-progressive-attack-on-talk-radio/ Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive” attack on talk radio].</ref> <br />
<br />
[[Image:Fairness-doc.jpg|thumb|350px|Paul Nowak in 2007 satirized liberal paranoia of talk radio. <ref> [http://newsbusters.org/node/13855 Paul Nowak Satirizes Liberal Paranoia of Talk Radio] </ref>]]<br />
<br />
With the rise of alternatives like cable TV, the networks lost their monopoly on news and public affairs programming. President Ronald Reagan helped introduce competition into the marketplace of ideas by deregulating the broadcast industry and had the FCC drop the "fairness doctrine". Reagan's idea was that broadcasters could endorse whatever views it chose (see [[free speech]] and [[freedom of the press]]).<br />
<ref>[http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm The Fairness Doctrine], Museum of Broadcast Communication</ref><br />
<br />
Representative [[Mike Pence]] R-Indiana) says “There’s nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine” <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286972,00.html Lawmaker Aims to Block Any Change to Talk Radio Rules]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Philip Terzian]] at the [[Weekly Standard]] says "Revival of the Fairness Doctrine is not intended to facilitate "both sides of the story" but to shut down conservative talk radio." <ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/926hhctd.asp Radio Free America</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Censorship]]<br />
*[[Conservative talk radio]]<br />
*[[Previous Breaking News/Fairness Doctrine|Articles about the '''Fairness Doctrine''' from previous "Breaking News"]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links==<br />
*[http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.323/pub_detail.asp The Claremont Institute - The Liberal Assault on Freedom of Speech]<br />
<br />
[[category:United States Political Doctrines]]<br />
[[category:broadcasting]]</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fairness_Doctrine&diff=899627Talk:Fairness Doctrine2011-08-11T04:30:45Z<p>TaylorH: /* Obama opposes doctrine */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>Did it have anything to do with the enormous investment required to get a TV or radio show on the air? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
*http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm would seem to see that it used to, but doesn't any more. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:00, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I rewrote the article a bit, so it no longer seemed that Reagan was opposing "fairness". Rather, he was championing free speech. That's fair, isn't it?<br />
<br />
:Yes. I was in a hurry to correct an article which indicated that the fairness doctrine was still in effect, and wasn't fussing too much about politics.<br />
<br />
:As to why...<br />
<br />
:My recollection... shooting from the hip... is that it had nothing much to do with investment, but with the idea that there were no ownership rights to the electromagnetic spectrum. It was a "commons," although I don't think that phrase was used at the time. Broadcasters did not own their spectrum, they licensed it. A condition of the license was that they were required to serve the public interest. The fairness doctrine sprang from that. <br />
<br />
:I believe the concept of public service was part of the Communications Act of 1936, which opened up the airwaves to commercial use. <br />
<br />
:The parallels with the Internet are very strong. It was, essentially, the universities and colleges that did all the heavy lifting in the pioneering of broadcast radio. There was great debate about commercializing the airwaves. There was serious consideration given to keeping it restricted to nonprofit use, and the universities were very annoyed at the possibilities of their doing all the hard work and businesses reaping the rewards, and concerned about getting squeezed the air completely if commercial interests were allowed.<br />
<br />
:In the end, Congress gave business about 90% of what they wanted, but set some special rules that kept a portion of the radio spectrum open for educational broadcasting. I don't remember what happened on the AM dial, but that's basically why virtually all the campus broadcasting stations (which includes most of the NPR outlets) are at the low end of the FM dials.<br />
<br />
:I remember reading that for first few years of ''commercial'' broadcasting, it was usual for ''commercial'' stations to turn off their transmitters one full day of the week, to give listeners a shot at receiving more distant stations. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:33, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:P. S. I put a lot of that in the past tense, but I believe "license, not own" and "serve the public interest" are still the current legal framework, but have been essentially hollowed out for practical purposes by the FCC's current policies and interpretation. My guess is that when someone has paid big bucks in a spectrum auction, they probably feel as if they've bought something, or leased it anyway. <br />
<br />
:I think it's inconsistent and wrong for the FCC to take a laissez-faire, free-market, free-speech approach to issues of political speech on the airwaves, or commercials on children's television, but not to take the same laissez-faire, free-market, free-speech approach when it comes to Janet Jackson's wardrobe. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Unfairness of the doctrine==<br />
I have just read an article at The Claremont Institute implying that the "Fairness Doctrine" was intended purely to censor conservative ideas. The doctrine '''did not''' put an end to public affairs programming, but rather ensured that only liberal views got a "fair" hearing. <br />
<br />
See [http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.323/pub_detail.asp this article]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:46, 6 March 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Obama opposes doctrine ==<br />
<br />
Is this really relevant? I do not think so. I feel that removing it is the best course of action as it does not contribute to the article and contains a liberal bias. Please feel free to correct me otherwise. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:30, 11 August 2011 (EDT)</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&diff=899625Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career2011-08-11T04:27:30Z<p>TaylorH: /* Mustafa Kemal */</p>
<hr />
<div>==This is interesting==<br />
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significance, and alphabetization ==<br />
<br />
The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.<br />
<br />
Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Land surveying ==<br />
<br />
I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Eisenhower ==<br />
<br />
He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ==<br />
<br />
Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am sure this was not the authors intent, but the above statement could come of as racist. I think he meant to say "a Black Muslim" - which is a political group. But by inserting atheist in between, it looks like "black" is being used in a perjorative way. The author might want to rephrase it.--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 17:08, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ??? ==<br />
<br />
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Definition of influence ==<br />
<br />
Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain the the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
<br />
::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== LBJ??? ==<br />
<br />
LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Problem with organization ==<br />
<br />
I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?<br />
<br />
I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Duke of Wellington ==<br />
<br />
Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The alternative to Chamberlain as PM in 1937 was Halifax, in which case there would have been more enthusiastic appeasement and no military build-up, and Britain would have become the western outpost of the Reich. No, Chamberlain's judgement in foreign policy wasn't immaculate but considering that his Foreign Secretary was Halifax and that Parliament, ''especially Labour'', was very strongly pro-appeasement, it wasn't as bad as ''The Guilty Men'' made out. Your line about "typical inter-war Tory" is incorrect; his achievements in improving working conditions and in economics were genuine. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Sorry, but there wasn't really a choice in '37. Baldwin advised the King to send for Chamberlain, and he did. The choice was Halifax vs Churchill a few years later. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: The debate took place within the Tory party. They chose the outstanding domestic politician of the first half of the 20th century although it would shortly become apparent that the expertise the PM would need was in foreign affairs. (But had they chosen the leading foreign affairs expert, history would have been disastrously different...) Modern historians are much less harsh on Chamberlain than their predecessors. If he had stood up to Germany in 1938, he would have given Hitler the opportunity to drag Britain into a war which she could not have won, under-equipped and without the support of France. The Czechoslovak economy and military was relatively strong but too small to resist the Wehrmacht. The real damage was done about 5 years earlier, when Baldwin refused to re-arm. Chamberlain's own policy as PM was the classic, "if you hope for peace, prepare for war" but that doesn't work against a madman. It's now generally understood that Chamberlain did ''not'' trust Hitler but felt he had no alternative in the Munich Conference; he certainly had no sympathy with the Nazis, unlike some more aristocratic Tories. It's also widely recognised that his very real achievements as Chancellor put Britain into a position in which rearmament from 1937 onwards was economically possible. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:53, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ron Paul ==<br />
<br />
For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.<br />
<br />
The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==<br />
<br />
Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Regarding Heydrich and Lenin: you've now placed them in the category of people whose career outside politics needs discussion. They were both thoroughly evil people but they both had significant careers before going into politics and were both extremely significant (negatively) as politicians. When you say, "Significant politicians", do you mean, "Significant politicians whose policies Andy Schlafly approves of"? Please let me know because if you do, perhaps it would not be a good use of my time or that of other editors to attempt to assist you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trudeau, Levesque, Parizeau, Mulroney as "undeserving" ==<br />
<br />
By what definition are these four men, who together and in opposition completely changed the political landscape of a country that happens to be our largest trading partner "undeserving"? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I would consider them morally undeserving. Levesque and Parizeau were separatists. Mulroney was corrupt and Trudeau was a socialist. In terms of influence, I might say Levesque because he was the first PQ premier. Trudeau and Mulroney were long serving but did not really do that much to change the country. Parizeau was a failure.<br />
:This article isn't about moral purity. Read the title of the article: "Politicians who had a real career." They were politicians. They were important politicians. They had careers before embarking in politics. Therefore, they deserve to be in the article. Your assertion that Trudeau and Mulroney didn't change the country is absurd. Trudeau, if he did nothing else, repatriated the constitution and gave the country the Charter of rights and Freedoms. Mulroney, if he did nothing else, opened the door for the a complete retooling of Canada's concept of a "social safety net." Parizeau might not have succeeded in bringing about Quebec independence, but he came very close, and Quebec-Canada relations have never been the same since 1995; moreover he was the financial brains behind the creation and expansion of "Quebec. Inc in the 1970s and 1980s. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:38, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Headlines are concise out of necessity. Implicit in the headline for this entry is the word "influential", as has already been explained before on this talk page. Someone who merely "opened the door" doesn't count; doormen are not counted among the most influential people, unless they do something in addition to opening doors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Pierre Trudeau wrote a new constitution for Canada. Writing a new constitution for a country is being a doorman? Look at Canada in 1983 when he left office, and look at Canada when Mulroney left office--do those countries look at all the same to you? Look at Quebec in 1976 before Levesque. Look at Quebec when Parizeau left office -- does that look at all like the same place? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Honestly, Canada does look the same to me throughout that period: beautiful landscape, terrific people, but headed in the misguided [[liberal]] direction. It's a tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Confusion ==<br />
<br />
Is there some special set of criteria here? Why are people like Margaret Thatcher being deleted while others like Lech Walesa are being moved to different sections? It's pretty clear that these two had significant careers before becoming politicians (Thatcher's science background was often referenced during her term as PM). I don't see why they shouldn't make the list, while Michele Bachmann, who has had no career outside politics at all, makes the top list. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I would suggest including an introductory paragraph at the top, to help clarify what exactly this is about. Certainly, Lech Walesa had a very clear and very real career, so why does he need "further discussion?" It is, I admit, an interesting idea to analyze the pre-politics careers of those that would be our leaders. But I'm not sure of the intentions of this essay nor its contents.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thatcher did not have a real career outside of government. Majoring in chemistry is not a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::[[Homeschooling]] 5 kids and helping raise about two-dozen additional foster children, as [[Michele Bachmann]] did, is a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I don't consider homeschooling 5 kids and raising foster kids a career. Nothing against homeschooling, but anyone can do it (although its hard to do it well). Same with raising foster kids. In Canada, most of the foster parents are on welfare and take in kids because the money does not come off of their cheques. Do they have careers ? Bachmann has two law degrees and was a successful lawyer. That is not something everyone could do. That is what I would call a career--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 18:01, 9 August 2011 (EDT) <br />
<br />
<br />
::Lech Walesa may merit the top list. Good point. Perhaps a greater explanation of what his career and political influence were would help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I really am also very confused - I added the two-term Mayor of New York and the likely GOP Presidential nominee, yet they have "no clear influence in politics"? Sorry, but I don't understand at all - they are both very significant figures? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 23:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am confused as to how Bachmann is considered to have a real career but not Obama? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:58, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'm confused too. I accept that Chamberlain's later career was controversial but why on earth have (1) Harold MacMillan and (2) Alex Salmond been removed from the top list? (1) Decolonisation of Africa was a big ahievement and (2) like him or loath him, Salmond is probably the most effective politician in the UK today. Perhaps I could politely suggest that the contributions of certain editors are not being made with the benefit of a strong sense of history...? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:06, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Insight ==<br />
<br />
Hi folks. I believe I have just had a fascinating conservative insight, based on the current form of this list. I present it here for your perusal and hope that it will provoke discussion. Noting that there are very few influential liberals in the first list, I conclude that <br />
<br />
'''Nearly all influential liberals are professional politicians. In contrast, many influential conservatives hold "real" jobs prior to entering politics.''' <br />
<br />
This appears to be particularly true among conservatives whose views align with those of the Tea Party. I believe this insight is well-supported by the data presented here, as soon as one has appropriately defined "influential" and "real job". --[[User:PhilS33|PhilS33]] 09:17, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Superb insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Indeed. "As soon as one has appropriately defined 'influential' and 'real job.'" It's all about how you choose to define your terms. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:47, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Not necessarily. "Influential" and ""real job" are hardly arcane or technical terms - they are commonly understood by most people. Now of course influence is not a binary quality, but one can certainly say that the more influential, the more likely to have had a real job (or vice versa) without getting bogged down in pedantic definitions.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:04, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It seems like this is almost a truism. Those who hold real jobs will gain an understanding of the value of money and the damage caused by over-regulation and high taxes. Thus, they will tend to become more conservative with time. Those who never hold real jobs will have little grasp of the value of a dollar or the harm of government overreach, and will thus tend towards liberalism. It's not unlike the difference between a child who is expected to attend to chores and a part-time job in order to earn spending money, as opposed to one who is spoiled and freely given money without responsibility. The first child will learn to be independent and self-sufficient, while the second will learn to run to mommy and daddy (or, in the case of liberals, the government) with outstretched hands whenever money runs short. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:43, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
PhilS's insight looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy as far as this site is concerned. Politicians that conservatives don't approve of aren't included in the list at the top part of the page (or get removed from it as soon as Mr Schlafly spots them). Winston Churchill and Reinhard Heydrich had careers as military officers of about the same length of time and were two of the most influential politicians of any country in the 20th century. Which implies that having a real job before entering politics won't make you the kind of politician decent people would approve of. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:35, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The list is objective. Winston Churchill was a phenomenal writer and historian, and he had a significant political influence. That obviously warrants the top list. Reinhard Heydrich, in contrast, was an immoral underachiever outside of politics, and the horrific crimes of Nazism continued after Heydrich died at age 38.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::The list cannot be considered "objective" for a moment as you say, as long as former US Presidents, current Presidential primary candidates, sitting US Senators and Governors of States are not considered to have had "influence". It seems very strange that you would take such a view, I must say? --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 16:31, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Denis Healey==<br />
<br />
Denis Healey introduced monetarism to the British economy in the late seventies. If that's not influential, what is? <br />
<br />
As for the "obscure or otherwise inept Brits" section, A+ for childish humour, Z-- for political insight ~~Rafael<br />
::Hey, I tried to argue that a guy who [[Pierre Trudeau|gave his country a new constitution]] was influential, and got shot down for no discernable reason. Good luck with this. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The policy of every British Chancellor since 1976, except Gordon Brown, has essentially followed Healey's policies. He's much more highly regarded - including by conservatives - and has been much more influential in the long term than either Wilson or Callahan, the PMs in whose cabinets he served. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I've put DH back in the top list. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:02, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mandela ==<br />
<br />
Can Mandela be said to have had a 'real' career before politics? He was an aristocrat who ran away from an arranged marriage and worked for a few years as a solicitors clerk after being fired from manual employment. Hardly a career... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I see your point. It's not like he played a sport or sang songs, you know, really important careers. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 12:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'd say that being a popular singer is more significant than being fired from a factory and failing the law exams, especially given Mandela's privileged background. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]]<br />
<br />
== Putin ==<br />
<br />
"(I don't think the KGB is a career outside of government)", but Washington's military career, which was certainly a government job, counts? I too am confused. [[User:ACork|ACork]] 17:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Washington is listed for reasons more than his brilliant military career which, by the way, was not a government job like the KGB.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, 'working for The Government' can mean different things when applied to different people. Sounds very like Orwell's (that good working class Conservative) Newspeak. As you are moving the goalposts depending whether the person fits your agenda or not I'll leave you to it. By the way, both Churchill and Thatcher were Atheists. Godspeed [[User:ACork|ACork]] 12:35, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::A mostly volunteer army is hardly "the government" in the same sense that career KGB functionaries are. And, as I said, Washington had a distinguished career in land development.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "What is a beach-master"? ==<br />
<br />
Surprised a history teacher doesn't know this. It's a military officer in charge of a section of beach during an amphibious invasion. He's the guy who's in charge of making sure everything/everybody that lands on his section of the beach goes where it's supposed to and is responsible for keeping things running in a smooth and unobstructed manner. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: OK, that seems clear enough, thanks ... but if it isn't more what you describe, then I don't think it qualifies as a significant career for the purposes of this list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ike ==<br />
<br />
What part of his career is there to discuss? He was an officer from more or less the midway point of WWI and kept getting promoted until he was made "Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe" culminating in the organisation and leading of D Day. He then became NATO supreme commander in Europe from 1951 until he ran for president in 1954. And that's just the highlights! I understand that Ike is not popular on this site, but lets not pretend that he didn't have a significant pre politics career. The very reason he won two landslide elections was because of his pre-politics career. Unless someone can give a coherent argument to the contrary, I will move him up to the top section. (And I don't think it can be argued he didn't have influence - his role in ending the Korean war, his moderating the demands of the Taft led senate all point to a significant influence, for good or bad). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Without objection; it is so moved. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== RE: John Major ==<br />
<br />
John Major was downgraded, and described as inept and obscure. I'd like to make a couple of points. John Major left school at 16, with only 3 O-levels. But he studied hard by correspondence course, and taught himself three more: 'British Constitution,' 'Economics,' 'Mathematics.' He helped with his father's small, failing business, and worked as a clerk. His father died, and that year, he joined the Young Conservatives, got a job with the London Electricity Board (and studied banking by correspondence while working a full time job). He became a banker with Standard Chartered Bank and became a senior executive who traveled across Africa for them. He famously began making speeches about economic conservative principles, standing on a box, at his local market, and became a Conservative Member of Parliament. He went on to be Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher, and succeeded her as Prime Minister.<br />
<br />
To me, somebody who didn't do very well at school, but worked very hard to better himself, and became a senior banking executive (remember that getting into such jobs without Oxford/Cambridge education or family connections is very difficult), then became the director of economic policy under THATCHER and then went onto be Prime Minister is a veritable conservative legend, who indeed had a solid career. He could, certainly, have earned more as a banking executive than as a politician. <br />
<br />
Now, let's talk about influence. If directing economic policy under Thatcher isn't influence enough, lets talk about other things. He famously convinced George Bush Sr to support no fly zones in the Gulf War. If convincing the American President of something isn't influence, what is? In 1992, with Major as Leader, the conservative party gained more votes than any other British political party has ever gained in an election. More than Thatcher or Churchill ever gained! Major's Back to Basics campaign emphasized the family values which sadly were absent from the last few years of Thatcher's administration. John major did as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else: And lets remember, that's one of the most successful cases of defeating terrorism ever. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 23:32, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You state your arguments very well. Thanks - I learned from your comments. But what is John Major's '''''influence'''''? It seems Major didn't recognize the importance of social issues ... and perhaps his somewhat traditional career was part of the problem. Most on the list have unique careers that enable them to bring something insightful to politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mustafa Kemal ==<br />
<br />
I regards to Mustafa Kemal I personally think that his longstanding service record in the Turkish forces and his driving force in the Young Turks movement makes him a certain candidate for a politician who had a real career. No peanut farming or so-called organizing for him. A proud member of his country's armed forces.<br />
--[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 23:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You may be right. Honestly, I don't know enough about Kemal's career to say. Was his military career distinguished?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am aware that he won twenty four medals throughout his career. Primarily awarded for distinguished service during the First World War. As well as one awarded during the war of independence. His military command record is a mixed bag i believe. Though by all accounts he seems to have been a good commander and a dutiful soldier. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: : Also I for his significance in history it should be his role in creating modern Turkey and making ties with the West. Its a nation that until recently had resisted the allure of Islamic extremism. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Thanks for the history - please add him to the top list with your explanations. Please note, however, that I'm reluctant to open the door to every politician who served in the military. That would be a very long list indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I have added him to the top list with explanation and note that he created a ''democratic'' Turkish state. Would abolishing the monarchy also qualify? --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&diff=899624Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career2011-08-11T04:26:19Z<p>TaylorH: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Significant politicians with a real former career==<br />
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):<br />
*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children; now is a [[conservative]] candidate in the presidential race. Was a practicing lawyer at the IRS for four years with two law degrees before leaving the workforce to raise her children.<br />
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending<br />
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] before it became [[atheistic]]<br />
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]<br />
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]<br />
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store, air force general<br />
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general, who was the leader of Allied European forces in the Second World War and Supreme Commander of Nato.<br />
*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Decorated army officer and political writer. First president of the Republic of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern democratic Turkish state.<br />
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office<br />
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s<br />
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (non-ABO-certified ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending<br />
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade<br />
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]<br />
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]<br />
*[[Pat Toomey]] - worked for ChemicalBank, opened Rookie's Restaurant & the former president for The Club for Growth; now a Senator for Pennsylvania.<br />
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].<br />
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor<br />
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.<br />
<br />
== No clear influence in politics ==<br />
<br />
*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions<br />
*Bill Bradley - National basketball star<br />
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)<br />
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). His chief claim to fame is how he trusted [[Hitler]], who played Chamberlain for the fool that he was.<br />
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.<br />
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director<br />
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant<br />
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab<br />
*[[Al Franken]] - US Senator for the State of Minnesota, formerly a comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')<br />
*[[John Glenn]] - former US Senator for Ohio, chief author 1978 Nonproliferation Act, Chairman of Committee on Governmental Affairs 1987-1995, Marine Corps pilot, NASA astronaut <br />
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)<br />
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - 31st President of the USA, former geologist, mining engineer<br />
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory<br />
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''<br />
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.<br />
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - Member of UK Parliament since 1992, double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]<br />
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.<br />
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]<br />
*René Lévesque - Journalist.<br />
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.<br />
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Prime Minister of Canada, Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.<br />
*[[Barack Obama]], President of the USA. (See also below)<br />
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.<br />
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - 66th US Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies<br />
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company<br />
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker<br />
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - Governor of California, professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor<br />
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback<br />
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010<br />
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], Prime Minister of Canada, lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal.<br />
<br />
== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==<br />
<br />
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the US, peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?<br />
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).<br />
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - possibly the most appalling of all the leading Nazi politicians because he planned the Final Solution; previously a naval officer.<br />
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.<br />
*[[Barack Obama]] - President of the US, claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]]. <br />
*[[Rick Santorum]] - former US Senator of Pennsylvania, Chairman of Senate Republican Conference, GOP Presidential primary candidate 2012, attorney<br />
*[[George W. Bush]] - 43rd President of the US, oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]<br />
*[[Lech Walesa]] - President of Poland 1990-95, Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]<br />
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer<br />
*[[Nelson Mandela]] - President of South Africa, 1994-99, lawyer<br />
<br />
== Other ==<br />
<br />
*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia.<br />
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher<br />
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister, bank executive<br />
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.<br />
<br />
(please add examples)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Essays]]</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&diff=899621Ayn Rand2011-08-11T04:19:29Z<p>TaylorH: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Jhyu65.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Ayn Rand. A great philosopher and writer who developed the [[Objectivism | Objectivist]] school of thought]]<br />
<br />
'''Ayn Rand''' (1905-1982) was an [[atheist]]ic novelist, screenwriter, and [[philosopher]], who began her career in Hollywood. She used her novels to promote her philosophy, known as [[Objectivism]]. Her best-known novels are [[Atlas_Shrugged|''Atlas Shrugged'']] and ''[[The Fountainhead]]''.<br />
<br />
She was a highly political author, with her novels often serving as political messages. She advocated minimal government interference (known by the name Minarchism) in business and strongly objected to socialism and nationalism. Combined, more than twelve million copies of her two best-known novels have been sold in the U.S. alone. Despite her anti-Christian and liberal views on social issues, her opposition to state economic intervention has made her works and philosophy popular with the [[TEA Party]] movement.<ref>''Ayn Rand stars at Denver stimulus ‘tea party’ protest'', Colorado Independent, Wendy Norris - 2/28/09 - [http://coloradoindependent.com/23026/ayn-rand-stars-at-denver-stimulus-tea-party-protest] </ref><br />
<br />
Her first name "Ayn" rhymes with "mine", and she was born in Russia as '''Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum.''' <br />
<br />
==Philosophy==<br />
{{Main|Objectivism}}<br />
<br />
Ayn Rand attracted a following based on her opposition to [[collectivism]], as articulated in her novels, particularly ''Atlas Shrugged''. Her followers today tend to be [[libertarians]] and predominantly unmarried men, many of whom are drawn to a self-indulgent lifestyle consistent with Rand's philosophy. Rand often called herself a "radical for capitalism," by which she meant the pure, ''laissez-faire'' variety. Rand had very little in common with [[conservatives]] except for a mutual opposition to communism and socialism. Rand has also been accused of being a rape apologist for her rape scene in ''The Fountainhead''. <br />
<br />
Rand's most famous and powerful follower was [[Alan Greenspan]] (b. 1926), long-time head of the Federal Researve System (1987-2006). <br />
<br />
Rand's philosophy was anti-Christian to the point of even declaring that "faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason."<ref>http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_religion%</ref> Such an anti-faith perspective [[atheism and morality|necessarily led]] to the [[moral relativism]] seen among her followers. For example, the movement she founded supports an "absolute right" to [[abortion]] at any time during pregnancy,<ref>http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5105</ref> including partial-birth abortion. Ayn Rand's philosophy and followers also support a "right" to have same-sex marriage, and opposed California's [[Proposition 8]] defining marriage as between one man and woman.<ref>http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21821</ref><br />
<br />
Rand was an [[atheism|atheist]] and opponent of traditional family values, who personally adhered more to [[Hollywood Values]] than conservative ones.<ref>http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html</ref> She was a strident opponent of altruism. As far back as 1957, [[Whittaker Chambers]] denounced the “wickedness” of ''Atlas Shrugged'' in ''National Review,'' and Dr. Gabe Vertin derided her "senseless self-agrrandizement."<br />
<br />
== Psychological profile ==<br />
<br />
The psychological underpinnings of Ayn Rand's socio-political and eco-political views are arguably related to her gender in the same way that [[Karl Marx]]’s views can be related to Marx’s gender. Namely, by the tendency of the genders to becoming overly sensitive in regard to their respective virtues. The male is most able in matters of [[individualism]], the female in matters of the collective. Ayn Rand’s disfavoring of the female virtues, and her consequent exclusivism in favor of the male virtues, may have been caused (in a modern world in which all good things are turned into more-or-less exclusives by some group or nation) by a particular sensitivity on her part to the female virtues. While it is good to feel things for others, it is not good to have that feeling used, in effect, to make one feel that one has no personal rights and needs. It can be argued that Rand typically felt so used, as do many women, but that Rand, unlike them, found herself with an opportunity to so 'right the wrong' that, unknown to her [[atheism]], she went much too far.<br />
<br />
Like Marx, Rand's atheism saw only one way toward a global salvation, namely by the opposite of her natural virtues as a woman. Jesus never preached liberation of women from men, nor men from women, but most perfectly empathized with the plights of both in the face of the other. [[Adam]] was created without a penny to his name, but he owned the entire [[Earth]]. And, Adam never shrugged anything in order to possess it, which means it cannot be owned by a kind of individualism which denies a common [[culpability]] for a common plight of the suffering which results from the fact that differentiated individuals and genders cope differently to a given non-ideal situation.<br />
<br />
Rand also grew up during the harshest years of communism in Russia which by her own admission had great effect on her personal beliefs. It is likely that the traumatizing effects of being a child at this time would have given her a great distaste for both the state and religion which was the object of intense propaganda under the Soviet regime. To a young and impressionable mind this may have had an effect on her thinking.<br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: The stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of [[human]] history, the stage of rule by brute force."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45735 WorldNetDaily.com Should Democratic Party merge with Communist Party?, August 12, 2005</ref><br />
<br />
==Works==<br />
*''We the Living''<br />
*''[[Anthem (book)|Anthem]]''<br />
*''The Fountainhead''<br />
*''Atlas Shrugged''<br />
*''Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal''<br />
*''The Romantic Manifesto''<br />
*''The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution''<br />
*''[[The Virtue of Selfishness]]''<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* Burns, Jennifer. ''Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right'' (2009), standard scholarly history, by a conservative historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Market-Rand-American-Right/dp/0195324870/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256927458&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br />
*Doherthy, Brian. ''Radicals for Capitalism a Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement.'' (2007), popular history.<br />
* Gladstein, Mimi Reisel. ''The Ayn Rand Companion'' (1984) 130 pp. good starting point<br />
* Heller, Ann C. ''Ayn Rand and the World She Made'' (2009)<br />
* Kirsch, Adam. "Ayn Rand’s Revenge" [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html?nl=books&emc=booksupdateema1 ''New York Times Sunday Book review'' Nov. 1, 2009] <br />
* Uyl, Douglas J. Den, and Douglas B. Rasmussen, eds. ''The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand'' (1984) 235 pp.; dense essays by professional philosophers<br />
<br />
====References====<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer Ayn Rand Institute]<br />
*[http://www.ARIwatch.com ARI Watch] — argues that the above misrepresents Ayn Rand.<br />
*[http://www.ios.org/ The Atlas Society — home of The Objectivist Center]<br />
*[http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page Objectivism Wiki]<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Rand, Ayn}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Women Authors]]<br />
[[Category:Atheists]]<br />
[[Category:Libertarianism]]<br />
[[Category:Cold War]]</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&diff=899619Talk:Ayn Rand2011-08-11T04:13:50Z<p>TaylorH: /* No mention of her Athiesm? */</p>
<hr />
<div>"Rand has also been noted for her pioneering work in the use of the Cut-Up technique, used to great effect in the speeches of Atlas Shrugged" Is this really true? I was reading about cut-up the other day and no mention of Rand was made. It would certainly explain those speeches unreadability, however. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I think that whole paragraph is intended a joking criticism of her. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:43, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Got it. Thanks. Of course. Strangely, I saw the humor in the part about overcoming the writer's limitations, but not in the cut-up part - because I thought it was serious. Hey, I don't mind people making fun of Rand, although it seems like poor sport, as she can't respond any more, but I wouldn't want this article to confuse someone about the history of cut-up techniques and history. Maybe if the word "cut-up" was linked to an intermediary "that was a joke" page that then links to, say, William Burroughs, whoever inspired him, and perhaps even the Beatles (who used cut-up tapes on ''...Mr. Kite'' and ''Yellow Submarine'', at least). or at least then to a page about cut-up. Now, where was I reading about it? Hopefully not on Wikipedia, that would all be liberal nonsense. Maybe it was in a book review in [[The Nation]]? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::OK, I did the "intermediate page" thing, but it's a bad idea - pollutes the namespace. I'll make it into a footnote and have a sysop delete the "just kidding" page. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
-oOo-<br />
<br />
If we’re going to have an external link to the Ayn Rand Institute, then we should have one to [http://www.ARIwatch.com ARI Watch], otherwise people will get the impression Ayn Rand was a complete idiot. — Mark<br />
<br />
== No mention of her Athiesm? ==<br />
<br />
Hey Andy, I hope you know that Ayn Rand was also an atheist. You seem to despise them on this site's Atheism page, but it's all praise for an atheist as long as they agree with you on political issues? I dont know man, seems like hipocracy to me. Not to mention that while she was an intelligent woman, she was also a dispiciple one and promoted selfishism. Being a Christian is about being Christ-like and Jesus was FAR from selfish or "objective". I sincerly hope that this doesnt get me blocked for whatever reason. And yes, I'm liberal but also a Christian. I geniunely want to hear your thoughts on this issue Peace & Love. B.Jerome<br />
<br />
:Your spelling is atrocious. But please do add your insights about atheism and Ayn Rand, if you can substantiate them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Mr. Schlafly maybe it is worth putting mention of her rather militant atheism into this? I find nothing wrong with her ideals but perhaps in the article itself we could explain her experiences in growing up in a communist society? She would have been very conditioned by the state to not like religion. Perhaps an effect that chased her? --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:13, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Her liberal viewpoints ==<br />
<br />
Although they are mentioned later on in the article, her liberal views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. should be more prominently displayed, preferably in the article's intro. This would be, at the least, keeping with the general format I've seen for articles on liberal people, or people who happen to have liberal views. Also, why are her works listed on the Main Page as if they are useful to the average conservative reader? A work, no matter how "conservative" the tone, or message, if written by a liberal, should not be promoted. If anything, I wonder if that makes it even more...suspicious, that she wrote it that way. [[User:AliceCurtis|AliceCurtis]] 15:32, 4 July 2009 (EDT)</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&diff=899617Talk:Ayn Rand2011-08-11T04:13:23Z<p>TaylorH: /* No mention of her Athiesm? */</p>
<hr />
<div>"Rand has also been noted for her pioneering work in the use of the Cut-Up technique, used to great effect in the speeches of Atlas Shrugged" Is this really true? I was reading about cut-up the other day and no mention of Rand was made. It would certainly explain those speeches unreadability, however. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I think that whole paragraph is intended a joking criticism of her. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:43, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Got it. Thanks. Of course. Strangely, I saw the humor in the part about overcoming the writer's limitations, but not in the cut-up part - because I thought it was serious. Hey, I don't mind people making fun of Rand, although it seems like poor sport, as she can't respond any more, but I wouldn't want this article to confuse someone about the history of cut-up techniques and history. Maybe if the word "cut-up" was linked to an intermediary "that was a joke" page that then links to, say, William Burroughs, whoever inspired him, and perhaps even the Beatles (who used cut-up tapes on ''...Mr. Kite'' and ''Yellow Submarine'', at least). or at least then to a page about cut-up. Now, where was I reading about it? Hopefully not on Wikipedia, that would all be liberal nonsense. Maybe it was in a book review in [[The Nation]]? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::OK, I did the "intermediate page" thing, but it's a bad idea - pollutes the namespace. I'll make it into a footnote and have a sysop delete the "just kidding" page. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
-oOo-<br />
<br />
If we’re going to have an external link to the Ayn Rand Institute, then we should have one to [http://www.ARIwatch.com ARI Watch], otherwise people will get the impression Ayn Rand was a complete idiot. — Mark<br />
<br />
== No mention of her Athiesm? ==<br />
<br />
Hey Andy, I hope you know that Ayn Rand was also an atheist. You seem to despise them on this site's Atheism page, but it's all praise for an atheist as long as they agree with you on political issues? I dont know man, seems like hipocracy to me. Not to mention that while she was an intelligent woman, she was also a dispiciple one and promoted selfishism. Being a Christian is about being Christ-like and Jesus was FAR from selfish or "objective". I sincerly hope that this doesnt get me blocked for whatever reason. And yes, I'm liberal but also a Christian. I geniunely want to hear your thoughts on this issue Peace & Love. B.Jerome<br />
<br />
:Your spelling is atrocious. But please do add your insights about atheism and Ayn Rand, if you can substantiate them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Mr. Schlafly maybe it is worth putting mention of her rather militant atheism into this? I find nothing wrong with her ideals but perhaps in the article itself we could explain her experiences in growing up in a communist society? She would have been bery conditioned by the state to not like religion. Perhaps an effect that chased her?<br />
<br />
== Her liberal viewpoints ==<br />
<br />
Although they are mentioned later on in the article, her liberal views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. should be more prominently displayed, preferably in the article's intro. This would be, at the least, keeping with the general format I've seen for articles on liberal people, or people who happen to have liberal views. Also, why are her works listed on the Main Page as if they are useful to the average conservative reader? A work, no matter how "conservative" the tone, or message, if written by a liberal, should not be promoted. If anything, I wonder if that makes it even more...suspicious, that she wrote it that way. [[User:AliceCurtis|AliceCurtis]] 15:32, 4 July 2009 (EDT)</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&diff=899612Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career2011-08-11T04:06:38Z<p>TaylorH: /* Mustafa Kemal */</p>
<hr />
<div>==This is interesting==<br />
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significance, and alphabetization ==<br />
<br />
The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.<br />
<br />
Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Land surveying ==<br />
<br />
I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Eisenhower ==<br />
<br />
He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ==<br />
<br />
Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am sure this was not the authors intent, but the above statement could come of as racist. I think he meant to say "a Black Muslim" - which is a political group. But by inserting atheist in between, it looks like "black" is being used in a perjorative way. The author might want to rephrase it.--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 17:08, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ??? ==<br />
<br />
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Definition of influence ==<br />
<br />
Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain the the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
<br />
::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== LBJ??? ==<br />
<br />
LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Problem with organization ==<br />
<br />
I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?<br />
<br />
I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Duke of Wellington ==<br />
<br />
Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The alternative to Chamberlain as PM in 1937 was Halifax, in which case there would have been more enthusiastic appeasement and no military build-up, and Britain would have become the western outpost of the Reich. No, Chamberlain's judgement in foreign policy wasn't immaculate but considering that his Foreign Secretary was Halifax and that Parliament, ''especially Labour'', was very strongly pro-appeasement, it wasn't as bad as ''The Guilty Men'' made out. Your line about "typical inter-war Tory" is incorrect; his achievements in improving working conditions and in economics were genuine. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Sorry, but there wasn't really a choice in '37. Baldwin advised the King to send for Chamberlain, and he did. The choice was Halifax vs Churchill a few years later. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: The debate took place within the Tory party. They chose the outstanding domestic politician of the first half of the 20th century although it would shortly become apparent that the expertise the PM would need was in foreign affairs. (But had they chosen the leading foreign affairs expert, history would have been disastrously different...) Modern historians are much less harsh on Chamberlain than their predecessors. If he had stood up to Germany in 1938, he would have given Hitler the opportunity to drag Britain into a war which she could not have won, under-equipped and without the support of France. The Czechoslovak economy and military was relatively strong but too small to resist the Wehrmacht. The real damage was done about 5 years earlier, when Baldwin refused to re-arm. Chamberlain's own policy as PM was the classic, "if you hope for peace, prepare for war" but that doesn't work against a madman. It's now generally understood that Chamberlain did ''not'' trust Hitler but felt he had no alternative in the Munich Conference; he certainly had no sympathy with the Nazis, unlike some more aristocratic Tories. It's also widely recognised that his very real achievements as Chancellor put Britain into a position in which rearmament from 1937 onwards was economically possible. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:53, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ron Paul ==<br />
<br />
For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.<br />
<br />
The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==<br />
<br />
Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Regarding Heydrich and Lenin: you've now placed them in the category of people whose career outside politics needs discussion. They were both thoroughly evil people but they both had significant careers before going into politics and were both extremely significant (negatively) as politicians. When you say, "Significant politicians", do you mean, "Significant politicians whose policies Andy Schlafly approves of"? Please let me know because if you do, perhaps it would not be a good use of my time or that of other editors to attempt to assist you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trudeau, Levesque, Parizeau, Mulroney as "undeserving" ==<br />
<br />
By what definition are these four men, who together and in opposition completely changed the political landscape of a country that happens to be our largest trading partner "undeserving"? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I would consider them morally undeserving. Levesque and Parizeau were separatists. Mulroney was corrupt and Trudeau was a socialist. In terms of influence, I might say Levesque because he was the first PQ premier. Trudeau and Mulroney were long serving but did not really do that much to change the country. Parizeau was a failure.<br />
:This article isn't about moral purity. Read the title of the article: "Politicians who had a real career." They were politicians. They were important politicians. They had careers before embarking in politics. Therefore, they deserve to be in the article. Your assertion that Trudeau and Mulroney didn't change the country is absurd. Trudeau, if he did nothing else, repatriated the constitution and gave the country the Charter of rights and Freedoms. Mulroney, if he did nothing else, opened the door for the a complete retooling of Canada's concept of a "social safety net." Parizeau might not have succeeded in bringing about Quebec independence, but he came very close, and Quebec-Canada relations have never been the same since 1995; moreover he was the financial brains behind the creation and expansion of "Quebec. Inc in the 1970s and 1980s. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:38, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Headlines are concise out of necessity. Implicit in the headline for this entry is the word "influential", as has already been explained before on this talk page. Someone who merely "opened the door" doesn't count; doormen are not counted among the most influential people, unless they do something in addition to opening doors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Pierre Trudeau wrote a new constitution for Canada. Writing a new constitution for a country is being a doorman? Look at Canada in 1983 when he left office, and look at Canada when Mulroney left office--do those countries look at all the same to you? Look at Quebec in 1976 before Levesque. Look at Quebec when Parizeau left office -- does that look at all like the same place? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Honestly, Canada does look the same to me throughout that period: beautiful landscape, terrific people, but headed in the misguided [[liberal]] direction. It's a tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Confusion ==<br />
<br />
Is there some special set of criteria here? Why are people like Margaret Thatcher being deleted while others like Lech Walesa are being moved to different sections? It's pretty clear that these two had significant careers before becoming politicians (Thatcher's science background was often referenced during her term as PM). I don't see why they shouldn't make the list, while Michele Bachmann, who has had no career outside politics at all, makes the top list. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I would suggest including an introductory paragraph at the top, to help clarify what exactly this is about. Certainly, Lech Walesa had a very clear and very real career, so why does he need "further discussion?" It is, I admit, an interesting idea to analyze the pre-politics careers of those that would be our leaders. But I'm not sure of the intentions of this essay nor its contents.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thatcher did not have a real career outside of government. Majoring in chemistry is not a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::[[Homeschooling]] 5 kids and helping raise about two-dozen additional foster children, as [[Michele Bachmann]] did, is a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I don't consider homeschooling 5 kids and raising foster kids a career. Nothing against homeschooling, but anyone can do it (although its hard to do it well). Same with raising foster kids. In Canada, most of the foster parents are on welfare and take in kids because the money does not come off of their cheques. Do they have careers ? Bachmann has two law degrees and was a successful lawyer. That is not something everyone could do. That is what I would call a career--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 18:01, 9 August 2011 (EDT) <br />
<br />
<br />
::Lech Walesa may merit the top list. Good point. Perhaps a greater explanation of what his career and political influence were would help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I really am also very confused - I added the two-term Mayor of New York and the likely GOP Presidential nominee, yet they have "no clear influence in politics"? Sorry, but I don't understand at all - they are both very significant figures? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 23:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am confused as to how Bachmann is considered to have a real career but not Obama? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:58, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'm confused too. I accept that Chamberlain's later career was controversial but why on earth have (1) Harold MacMillan and (2) Alex Salmond been removed from the top list? (1) Decolonisation of Africa was a big ahievement and (2) like him or loath him, Salmond is probably the most effective politician in the UK today. Perhaps I could politely suggest that the contributions of certain editors are not being made with the benefit of a strong sense of history...? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:06, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Insight ==<br />
<br />
Hi folks. I believe I have just had a fascinating conservative insight, based on the current form of this list. I present it here for your perusal and hope that it will provoke discussion. Noting that there are very few influential liberals in the first list, I conclude that <br />
<br />
'''Nearly all influential liberals are professional politicians. In contrast, many influential conservatives hold "real" jobs prior to entering politics.''' <br />
<br />
This appears to be particularly true among conservatives whose views align with those of the Tea Party. I believe this insight is well-supported by the data presented here, as soon as one has appropriately defined "influential" and "real job". --[[User:PhilS33|PhilS33]] 09:17, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Superb insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Indeed. "As soon as one has appropriately defined 'influential' and 'real job.'" It's all about how you choose to define your terms. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:47, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Not necessarily. "Influential" and ""real job" are hardly arcane or technical terms - they are commonly understood by most people. Now of course influence is not a binary quality, but one can certainly say that the more influential, the more likely to have had a real job (or vice versa) without getting bogged down in pedantic definitions.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:04, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It seems like this is almost a truism. Those who hold real jobs will gain an understanding of the value of money and the damage caused by over-regulation and high taxes. Thus, they will tend to become more conservative with time. Those who never hold real jobs will have little grasp of the value of a dollar or the harm of government overreach, and will thus tend towards liberalism. It's not unlike the difference between a child who is expected to attend to chores and a part-time job in order to earn spending money, as opposed to one who is spoiled and freely given money without responsibility. The first child will learn to be independent and self-sufficient, while the second will learn to run to mommy and daddy (or, in the case of liberals, the government) with outstretched hands whenever money runs short. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:43, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
PhilS's insight looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy as far as this site is concerned. Politicians that conservatives don't approve of aren't included in the list at the top part of the page (or get removed from it as soon as Mr Schlafly spots them). Winston Churchill and Reinhard Heydrich had careers as military officers of about the same length of time and were two of the most influential politicians of any country in the 20th century. Which implies that having a real job before entering politics won't make you the kind of politician decent people would approve of. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:35, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The list is objective. Winston Churchill was a phenomenal writer and historian, and he had a significant political influence. That obviously warrants the top list. Reinhard Heydrich, in contrast, was an immoral underachiever outside of politics, and the horrific crimes of Nazism continued after Heydrich died at age 38.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::The list cannot be considered "objective" for a moment as you say, as long as former US Presidents, current Presidential primary candidates, sitting US Senators and Governors of States are not considered to have had "influence". It seems very strange that you would take such a view, I must say? --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 16:31, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Denis Healey==<br />
<br />
Denis Healey introduced monetarism to the British economy in the late seventies. If that's not influential, what is? <br />
<br />
As for the "obscure or otherwise inept Brits" section, A+ for childish humour, Z-- for political insight ~~Rafael<br />
::Hey, I tried to argue that a guy who [[Pierre Trudeau|gave his country a new constitution]] was influential, and got shot down for no discernable reason. Good luck with this. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The policy of every British Chancellor since 1976, except Gordon Brown, has essentially followed Healey's policies. He's much more highly regarded - including by conservatives - and has been much more influential in the long term than either Wilson or Callahan, the PMs in whose cabinets he served. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I've put DH back in the top list. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:02, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mandela ==<br />
<br />
Can Mandela be said to have had a 'real' career before politics? He was an aristocrat who ran away from an arranged marriage and worked for a few years as a solicitors clerk after being fired from manual employment. Hardly a career... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I see your point. It's not like he played a sport or sang songs, you know, really important careers. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 12:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'd say that being a popular singer is more significant than being fired from a factory and failing the law exams, especially given Mandela's privileged background. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]]<br />
<br />
== Putin ==<br />
<br />
"(I don't think the KGB is a career outside of government)", but Washington's military career, which was certainly a government job, counts? I too am confused. [[User:ACork|ACork]] 17:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Washington is listed for reasons more than his brilliant military career which, by the way, was not a government job like the KGB.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, 'working for The Government' can mean different things when applied to different people. Sounds very like Orwell's (that good working class Conservative) Newspeak. As you are moving the goalposts depending whether the person fits your agenda or not I'll leave you to it. By the way, both Churchill and Thatcher were Atheists. Godspeed [[User:ACork|ACork]] 12:35, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::A mostly volunteer army is hardly "the government" in the same sense that career KGB functionaries are. And, as I said, Washington had a distinguished career in land development.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "What is a beach-master"? ==<br />
<br />
Surprised a history teacher doesn't know this. It's a military officer in charge of a section of beach during an amphibious invasion. He's the guy who's in charge of making sure everything/everybody that lands on his section of the beach goes where it's supposed to and is responsible for keeping things running in a smooth and unobstructed manner. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: OK, that seems clear enough, thanks ... but if it isn't more what you describe, then I don't think it qualifies as a significant career for the purposes of this list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ike ==<br />
<br />
What part of his career is there to discuss? He was an officer from more or less the midway point of WWI and kept getting promoted until he was made "Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe" culminating in the organisation and leading of D Day. He then became NATO supreme commander in Europe from 1951 until he ran for president in 1954. And that's just the highlights! I understand that Ike is not popular on this site, but lets not pretend that he didn't have a significant pre politics career. The very reason he won two landslide elections was because of his pre-politics career. Unless someone can give a coherent argument to the contrary, I will move him up to the top section. (And I don't think it can be argued he didn't have influence - his role in ending the Korean war, his moderating the demands of the Taft led senate all point to a significant influence, for good or bad). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Without objection; it is so moved. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== RE: John Major ==<br />
<br />
John Major was downgraded, and described as inept and obscure. I'd like to make a couple of points. John Major left school at 16, with only 3 O-levels. But he studied hard by correspondence course, and taught himself three more: 'British Constitution,' 'Economics,' 'Mathematics.' He helped with his father's small, failing business, and worked as a clerk. His father died, and that year, he joined the Young Conservatives, got a job with the London Electricity Board (and studied banking by correspondence while working a full time job). He became a banker with Standard Chartered Bank and became a senior executive who traveled across Africa for them. He famously began making speeches about economic conservative principles, standing on a box, at his local market, and became a Conservative Member of Parliament. He went on to be Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher, and succeeded her as Prime Minister.<br />
<br />
To me, somebody who didn't do very well at school, but worked very hard to better himself, and became a senior banking executive (remember that getting into such jobs without Oxford/Cambridge education or family connections is very difficult), then became the director of economic policy under THATCHER and then went onto be Prime Minister is a veritable conservative legend, who indeed had a solid career. He could, certainly, have earned more as a banking executive than as a politician. <br />
<br />
Now, let's talk about influence. If directing economic policy under Thatcher isn't influence enough, lets talk about other things. He famously convinced George Bush Sr to support no fly zones in the Gulf War. If convincing the American President of something isn't influence, what is? In 1992, with Major as Leader, the conservative party gained more votes than any other British political party has ever gained in an election. More than Thatcher or Churchill ever gained! Major's Back to Basics campaign emphasized the family values which sadly were absent from the last few years of Thatcher's administration. John major did as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else: And lets remember, that's one of the most successful cases of defeating terrorism ever. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 23:32, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You state your arguments very well. Thanks - I learned from your comments. But what is John Major's '''''influence'''''? It seems Major didn't recognize the importance of social issues ... and perhaps his somewhat traditional career was part of the problem. Most on the list have unique careers that enable them to bring something insightful to politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mustafa Kemal ==<br />
<br />
I regards to Mustafa Kemal I personally think that his longstanding service record in the Turkish forces and his driving force in the Young Turks movement makes him a certain candidate for a politician who had a real career. No peanut farming or so-called organizing for him. A proud member of his country's armed forces.<br />
--[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 23:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You may be right. Honestly, I don't know enough about Kemal's career to say. Was his military career distinguished?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am aware that he won twenty four medals throughout his career. Primarily awarded for distinguished service during the First World War. As well as one awarded during the war of independence. His military command record is a mixed bag i believe. Though by all accounts he seems to have been a good commander and a dutiful soldier. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: : Also I for his significance in history it should be his role in creating modern Turkey and making ties with the West. Its a nation that until recently had resisted the allure of Islamic extremism. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&diff=899610Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career2011-08-11T04:06:00Z<p>TaylorH: /* Mustafa Kemal */</p>
<hr />
<div>==This is interesting==<br />
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significance, and alphabetization ==<br />
<br />
The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.<br />
<br />
Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Land surveying ==<br />
<br />
I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Eisenhower ==<br />
<br />
He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ==<br />
<br />
Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am sure this was not the authors intent, but the above statement could come of as racist. I think he meant to say "a Black Muslim" - which is a political group. But by inserting atheist in between, it looks like "black" is being used in a perjorative way. The author might want to rephrase it.--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 17:08, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ??? ==<br />
<br />
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Definition of influence ==<br />
<br />
Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain the the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
<br />
::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== LBJ??? ==<br />
<br />
LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Problem with organization ==<br />
<br />
I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?<br />
<br />
I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Duke of Wellington ==<br />
<br />
Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The alternative to Chamberlain as PM in 1937 was Halifax, in which case there would have been more enthusiastic appeasement and no military build-up, and Britain would have become the western outpost of the Reich. No, Chamberlain's judgement in foreign policy wasn't immaculate but considering that his Foreign Secretary was Halifax and that Parliament, ''especially Labour'', was very strongly pro-appeasement, it wasn't as bad as ''The Guilty Men'' made out. Your line about "typical inter-war Tory" is incorrect; his achievements in improving working conditions and in economics were genuine. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Sorry, but there wasn't really a choice in '37. Baldwin advised the King to send for Chamberlain, and he did. The choice was Halifax vs Churchill a few years later. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: The debate took place within the Tory party. They chose the outstanding domestic politician of the first half of the 20th century although it would shortly become apparent that the expertise the PM would need was in foreign affairs. (But had they chosen the leading foreign affairs expert, history would have been disastrously different...) Modern historians are much less harsh on Chamberlain than their predecessors. If he had stood up to Germany in 1938, he would have given Hitler the opportunity to drag Britain into a war which she could not have won, under-equipped and without the support of France. The Czechoslovak economy and military was relatively strong but too small to resist the Wehrmacht. The real damage was done about 5 years earlier, when Baldwin refused to re-arm. Chamberlain's own policy as PM was the classic, "if you hope for peace, prepare for war" but that doesn't work against a madman. It's now generally understood that Chamberlain did ''not'' trust Hitler but felt he had no alternative in the Munich Conference; he certainly had no sympathy with the Nazis, unlike some more aristocratic Tories. It's also widely recognised that his very real achievements as Chancellor put Britain into a position in which rearmament from 1937 onwards was economically possible. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:53, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ron Paul ==<br />
<br />
For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.<br />
<br />
The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==<br />
<br />
Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Regarding Heydrich and Lenin: you've now placed them in the category of people whose career outside politics needs discussion. They were both thoroughly evil people but they both had significant careers before going into politics and were both extremely significant (negatively) as politicians. When you say, "Significant politicians", do you mean, "Significant politicians whose policies Andy Schlafly approves of"? Please let me know because if you do, perhaps it would not be a good use of my time or that of other editors to attempt to assist you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trudeau, Levesque, Parizeau, Mulroney as "undeserving" ==<br />
<br />
By what definition are these four men, who together and in opposition completely changed the political landscape of a country that happens to be our largest trading partner "undeserving"? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I would consider them morally undeserving. Levesque and Parizeau were separatists. Mulroney was corrupt and Trudeau was a socialist. In terms of influence, I might say Levesque because he was the first PQ premier. Trudeau and Mulroney were long serving but did not really do that much to change the country. Parizeau was a failure.<br />
:This article isn't about moral purity. Read the title of the article: "Politicians who had a real career." They were politicians. They were important politicians. They had careers before embarking in politics. Therefore, they deserve to be in the article. Your assertion that Trudeau and Mulroney didn't change the country is absurd. Trudeau, if he did nothing else, repatriated the constitution and gave the country the Charter of rights and Freedoms. Mulroney, if he did nothing else, opened the door for the a complete retooling of Canada's concept of a "social safety net." Parizeau might not have succeeded in bringing about Quebec independence, but he came very close, and Quebec-Canada relations have never been the same since 1995; moreover he was the financial brains behind the creation and expansion of "Quebec. Inc in the 1970s and 1980s. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:38, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Headlines are concise out of necessity. Implicit in the headline for this entry is the word "influential", as has already been explained before on this talk page. Someone who merely "opened the door" doesn't count; doormen are not counted among the most influential people, unless they do something in addition to opening doors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Pierre Trudeau wrote a new constitution for Canada. Writing a new constitution for a country is being a doorman? Look at Canada in 1983 when he left office, and look at Canada when Mulroney left office--do those countries look at all the same to you? Look at Quebec in 1976 before Levesque. Look at Quebec when Parizeau left office -- does that look at all like the same place? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Honestly, Canada does look the same to me throughout that period: beautiful landscape, terrific people, but headed in the misguided [[liberal]] direction. It's a tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Confusion ==<br />
<br />
Is there some special set of criteria here? Why are people like Margaret Thatcher being deleted while others like Lech Walesa are being moved to different sections? It's pretty clear that these two had significant careers before becoming politicians (Thatcher's science background was often referenced during her term as PM). I don't see why they shouldn't make the list, while Michele Bachmann, who has had no career outside politics at all, makes the top list. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I would suggest including an introductory paragraph at the top, to help clarify what exactly this is about. Certainly, Lech Walesa had a very clear and very real career, so why does he need "further discussion?" It is, I admit, an interesting idea to analyze the pre-politics careers of those that would be our leaders. But I'm not sure of the intentions of this essay nor its contents.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thatcher did not have a real career outside of government. Majoring in chemistry is not a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::[[Homeschooling]] 5 kids and helping raise about two-dozen additional foster children, as [[Michele Bachmann]] did, is a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I don't consider homeschooling 5 kids and raising foster kids a career. Nothing against homeschooling, but anyone can do it (although its hard to do it well). Same with raising foster kids. In Canada, most of the foster parents are on welfare and take in kids because the money does not come off of their cheques. Do they have careers ? Bachmann has two law degrees and was a successful lawyer. That is not something everyone could do. That is what I would call a career--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 18:01, 9 August 2011 (EDT) <br />
<br />
<br />
::Lech Walesa may merit the top list. Good point. Perhaps a greater explanation of what his career and political influence were would help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I really am also very confused - I added the two-term Mayor of New York and the likely GOP Presidential nominee, yet they have "no clear influence in politics"? Sorry, but I don't understand at all - they are both very significant figures? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 23:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am confused as to how Bachmann is considered to have a real career but not Obama? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:58, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'm confused too. I accept that Chamberlain's later career was controversial but why on earth have (1) Harold MacMillan and (2) Alex Salmond been removed from the top list? (1) Decolonisation of Africa was a big ahievement and (2) like him or loath him, Salmond is probably the most effective politician in the UK today. Perhaps I could politely suggest that the contributions of certain editors are not being made with the benefit of a strong sense of history...? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:06, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Insight ==<br />
<br />
Hi folks. I believe I have just had a fascinating conservative insight, based on the current form of this list. I present it here for your perusal and hope that it will provoke discussion. Noting that there are very few influential liberals in the first list, I conclude that <br />
<br />
'''Nearly all influential liberals are professional politicians. In contrast, many influential conservatives hold "real" jobs prior to entering politics.''' <br />
<br />
This appears to be particularly true among conservatives whose views align with those of the Tea Party. I believe this insight is well-supported by the data presented here, as soon as one has appropriately defined "influential" and "real job". --[[User:PhilS33|PhilS33]] 09:17, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Superb insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Indeed. "As soon as one has appropriately defined 'influential' and 'real job.'" It's all about how you choose to define your terms. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:47, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Not necessarily. "Influential" and ""real job" are hardly arcane or technical terms - they are commonly understood by most people. Now of course influence is not a binary quality, but one can certainly say that the more influential, the more likely to have had a real job (or vice versa) without getting bogged down in pedantic definitions.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:04, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It seems like this is almost a truism. Those who hold real jobs will gain an understanding of the value of money and the damage caused by over-regulation and high taxes. Thus, they will tend to become more conservative with time. Those who never hold real jobs will have little grasp of the value of a dollar or the harm of government overreach, and will thus tend towards liberalism. It's not unlike the difference between a child who is expected to attend to chores and a part-time job in order to earn spending money, as opposed to one who is spoiled and freely given money without responsibility. The first child will learn to be independent and self-sufficient, while the second will learn to run to mommy and daddy (or, in the case of liberals, the government) with outstretched hands whenever money runs short. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:43, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
PhilS's insight looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy as far as this site is concerned. Politicians that conservatives don't approve of aren't included in the list at the top part of the page (or get removed from it as soon as Mr Schlafly spots them). Winston Churchill and Reinhard Heydrich had careers as military officers of about the same length of time and were two of the most influential politicians of any country in the 20th century. Which implies that having a real job before entering politics won't make you the kind of politician decent people would approve of. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:35, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The list is objective. Winston Churchill was a phenomenal writer and historian, and he had a significant political influence. That obviously warrants the top list. Reinhard Heydrich, in contrast, was an immoral underachiever outside of politics, and the horrific crimes of Nazism continued after Heydrich died at age 38.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::The list cannot be considered "objective" for a moment as you say, as long as former US Presidents, current Presidential primary candidates, sitting US Senators and Governors of States are not considered to have had "influence". It seems very strange that you would take such a view, I must say? --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 16:31, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Denis Healey==<br />
<br />
Denis Healey introduced monetarism to the British economy in the late seventies. If that's not influential, what is? <br />
<br />
As for the "obscure or otherwise inept Brits" section, A+ for childish humour, Z-- for political insight ~~Rafael<br />
::Hey, I tried to argue that a guy who [[Pierre Trudeau|gave his country a new constitution]] was influential, and got shot down for no discernable reason. Good luck with this. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The policy of every British Chancellor since 1976, except Gordon Brown, has essentially followed Healey's policies. He's much more highly regarded - including by conservatives - and has been much more influential in the long term than either Wilson or Callahan, the PMs in whose cabinets he served. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I've put DH back in the top list. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:02, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mandela ==<br />
<br />
Can Mandela be said to have had a 'real' career before politics? He was an aristocrat who ran away from an arranged marriage and worked for a few years as a solicitors clerk after being fired from manual employment. Hardly a career... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I see your point. It's not like he played a sport or sang songs, you know, really important careers. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 12:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'd say that being a popular singer is more significant than being fired from a factory and failing the law exams, especially given Mandela's privileged background. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]]<br />
<br />
== Putin ==<br />
<br />
"(I don't think the KGB is a career outside of government)", but Washington's military career, which was certainly a government job, counts? I too am confused. [[User:ACork|ACork]] 17:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Washington is listed for reasons more than his brilliant military career which, by the way, was not a government job like the KGB.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, 'working for The Government' can mean different things when applied to different people. Sounds very like Orwell's (that good working class Conservative) Newspeak. As you are moving the goalposts depending whether the person fits your agenda or not I'll leave you to it. By the way, both Churchill and Thatcher were Atheists. Godspeed [[User:ACork|ACork]] 12:35, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::A mostly volunteer army is hardly "the government" in the same sense that career KGB functionaries are. And, as I said, Washington had a distinguished career in land development.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "What is a beach-master"? ==<br />
<br />
Surprised a history teacher doesn't know this. It's a military officer in charge of a section of beach during an amphibious invasion. He's the guy who's in charge of making sure everything/everybody that lands on his section of the beach goes where it's supposed to and is responsible for keeping things running in a smooth and unobstructed manner. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: OK, that seems clear enough, thanks ... but if it isn't more what you describe, then I don't think it qualifies as a significant career for the purposes of this list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ike ==<br />
<br />
What part of his career is there to discuss? He was an officer from more or less the midway point of WWI and kept getting promoted until he was made "Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe" culminating in the organisation and leading of D Day. He then became NATO supreme commander in Europe from 1951 until he ran for president in 1954. And that's just the highlights! I understand that Ike is not popular on this site, but lets not pretend that he didn't have a significant pre politics career. The very reason he won two landslide elections was because of his pre-politics career. Unless someone can give a coherent argument to the contrary, I will move him up to the top section. (And I don't think it can be argued he didn't have influence - his role in ending the Korean war, his moderating the demands of the Taft led senate all point to a significant influence, for good or bad). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Without objection; it is so moved. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== RE: John Major ==<br />
<br />
John Major was downgraded, and described as inept and obscure. I'd like to make a couple of points. John Major left school at 16, with only 3 O-levels. But he studied hard by correspondence course, and taught himself three more: 'British Constitution,' 'Economics,' 'Mathematics.' He helped with his father's small, failing business, and worked as a clerk. His father died, and that year, he joined the Young Conservatives, got a job with the London Electricity Board (and studied banking by correspondence while working a full time job). He became a banker with Standard Chartered Bank and became a senior executive who traveled across Africa for them. He famously began making speeches about economic conservative principles, standing on a box, at his local market, and became a Conservative Member of Parliament. He went on to be Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher, and succeeded her as Prime Minister.<br />
<br />
To me, somebody who didn't do very well at school, but worked very hard to better himself, and became a senior banking executive (remember that getting into such jobs without Oxford/Cambridge education or family connections is very difficult), then became the director of economic policy under THATCHER and then went onto be Prime Minister is a veritable conservative legend, who indeed had a solid career. He could, certainly, have earned more as a banking executive than as a politician. <br />
<br />
Now, let's talk about influence. If directing economic policy under Thatcher isn't influence enough, lets talk about other things. He famously convinced George Bush Sr to support no fly zones in the Gulf War. If convincing the American President of something isn't influence, what is? In 1992, with Major as Leader, the conservative party gained more votes than any other British political party has ever gained in an election. More than Thatcher or Churchill ever gained! Major's Back to Basics campaign emphasized the family values which sadly were absent from the last few years of Thatcher's administration. John major did as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else: And lets remember, that's one of the most successful cases of defeating terrorism ever. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 23:32, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You state your arguments very well. Thanks - I learned from your comments. But what is John Major's '''''influence'''''? It seems Major didn't recognize the importance of social issues ... and perhaps his somewhat traditional career was part of the problem. Most on the list have unique careers that enable them to bring something insightful to politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mustafa Kemal ==<br />
<br />
I regards to Mustafa Kemal I personally think that his longstanding service record in the Turkish forces and his driving force in the Young Turks movement makes him a certain candidate for a politician who had a real career. No peanut farming or so-called organizing for him. A proud member of his country's armed forces.<br />
--[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 23:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You may be right. Honestly, I don't know enough about Kemal's career to say. Was his military career distinguished?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am aware that he won twenty four medals throughout his career. Primarily awarded for distinguished service during the First World War. As well as one awarded during the war of independence. His military command record is a mixed bag i believe. Though by all accounts he seems to have been a good commander and a dutiful soldier. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Also I think for his significance it should be his role in creating modern Turkey and making ties with the West. Its a nation that until recently had resisted the allure of Islamic extremism. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&diff=899609Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career2011-08-11T04:03:11Z<p>TaylorH: /* Mustafa Kemal */</p>
<hr />
<div>==This is interesting==<br />
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significance, and alphabetization ==<br />
<br />
The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.<br />
<br />
Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Land surveying ==<br />
<br />
I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Eisenhower ==<br />
<br />
He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ==<br />
<br />
Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am sure this was not the authors intent, but the above statement could come of as racist. I think he meant to say "a Black Muslim" - which is a political group. But by inserting atheist in between, it looks like "black" is being used in a perjorative way. The author might want to rephrase it.--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 17:08, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ??? ==<br />
<br />
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Definition of influence ==<br />
<br />
Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain the the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
<br />
::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== LBJ??? ==<br />
<br />
LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Problem with organization ==<br />
<br />
I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?<br />
<br />
I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Duke of Wellington ==<br />
<br />
Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The alternative to Chamberlain as PM in 1937 was Halifax, in which case there would have been more enthusiastic appeasement and no military build-up, and Britain would have become the western outpost of the Reich. No, Chamberlain's judgement in foreign policy wasn't immaculate but considering that his Foreign Secretary was Halifax and that Parliament, ''especially Labour'', was very strongly pro-appeasement, it wasn't as bad as ''The Guilty Men'' made out. Your line about "typical inter-war Tory" is incorrect; his achievements in improving working conditions and in economics were genuine. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Sorry, but there wasn't really a choice in '37. Baldwin advised the King to send for Chamberlain, and he did. The choice was Halifax vs Churchill a few years later. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: The debate took place within the Tory party. They chose the outstanding domestic politician of the first half of the 20th century although it would shortly become apparent that the expertise the PM would need was in foreign affairs. (But had they chosen the leading foreign affairs expert, history would have been disastrously different...) Modern historians are much less harsh on Chamberlain than their predecessors. If he had stood up to Germany in 1938, he would have given Hitler the opportunity to drag Britain into a war which she could not have won, under-equipped and without the support of France. The Czechoslovak economy and military was relatively strong but too small to resist the Wehrmacht. The real damage was done about 5 years earlier, when Baldwin refused to re-arm. Chamberlain's own policy as PM was the classic, "if you hope for peace, prepare for war" but that doesn't work against a madman. It's now generally understood that Chamberlain did ''not'' trust Hitler but felt he had no alternative in the Munich Conference; he certainly had no sympathy with the Nazis, unlike some more aristocratic Tories. It's also widely recognised that his very real achievements as Chancellor put Britain into a position in which rearmament from 1937 onwards was economically possible. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:53, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ron Paul ==<br />
<br />
For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.<br />
<br />
The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==<br />
<br />
Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Regarding Heydrich and Lenin: you've now placed them in the category of people whose career outside politics needs discussion. They were both thoroughly evil people but they both had significant careers before going into politics and were both extremely significant (negatively) as politicians. When you say, "Significant politicians", do you mean, "Significant politicians whose policies Andy Schlafly approves of"? Please let me know because if you do, perhaps it would not be a good use of my time or that of other editors to attempt to assist you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trudeau, Levesque, Parizeau, Mulroney as "undeserving" ==<br />
<br />
By what definition are these four men, who together and in opposition completely changed the political landscape of a country that happens to be our largest trading partner "undeserving"? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I would consider them morally undeserving. Levesque and Parizeau were separatists. Mulroney was corrupt and Trudeau was a socialist. In terms of influence, I might say Levesque because he was the first PQ premier. Trudeau and Mulroney were long serving but did not really do that much to change the country. Parizeau was a failure.<br />
:This article isn't about moral purity. Read the title of the article: "Politicians who had a real career." They were politicians. They were important politicians. They had careers before embarking in politics. Therefore, they deserve to be in the article. Your assertion that Trudeau and Mulroney didn't change the country is absurd. Trudeau, if he did nothing else, repatriated the constitution and gave the country the Charter of rights and Freedoms. Mulroney, if he did nothing else, opened the door for the a complete retooling of Canada's concept of a "social safety net." Parizeau might not have succeeded in bringing about Quebec independence, but he came very close, and Quebec-Canada relations have never been the same since 1995; moreover he was the financial brains behind the creation and expansion of "Quebec. Inc in the 1970s and 1980s. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:38, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Headlines are concise out of necessity. Implicit in the headline for this entry is the word "influential", as has already been explained before on this talk page. Someone who merely "opened the door" doesn't count; doormen are not counted among the most influential people, unless they do something in addition to opening doors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Pierre Trudeau wrote a new constitution for Canada. Writing a new constitution for a country is being a doorman? Look at Canada in 1983 when he left office, and look at Canada when Mulroney left office--do those countries look at all the same to you? Look at Quebec in 1976 before Levesque. Look at Quebec when Parizeau left office -- does that look at all like the same place? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Honestly, Canada does look the same to me throughout that period: beautiful landscape, terrific people, but headed in the misguided [[liberal]] direction. It's a tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Confusion ==<br />
<br />
Is there some special set of criteria here? Why are people like Margaret Thatcher being deleted while others like Lech Walesa are being moved to different sections? It's pretty clear that these two had significant careers before becoming politicians (Thatcher's science background was often referenced during her term as PM). I don't see why they shouldn't make the list, while Michele Bachmann, who has had no career outside politics at all, makes the top list. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I would suggest including an introductory paragraph at the top, to help clarify what exactly this is about. Certainly, Lech Walesa had a very clear and very real career, so why does he need "further discussion?" It is, I admit, an interesting idea to analyze the pre-politics careers of those that would be our leaders. But I'm not sure of the intentions of this essay nor its contents.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thatcher did not have a real career outside of government. Majoring in chemistry is not a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::[[Homeschooling]] 5 kids and helping raise about two-dozen additional foster children, as [[Michele Bachmann]] did, is a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I don't consider homeschooling 5 kids and raising foster kids a career. Nothing against homeschooling, but anyone can do it (although its hard to do it well). Same with raising foster kids. In Canada, most of the foster parents are on welfare and take in kids because the money does not come off of their cheques. Do they have careers ? Bachmann has two law degrees and was a successful lawyer. That is not something everyone could do. That is what I would call a career--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 18:01, 9 August 2011 (EDT) <br />
<br />
<br />
::Lech Walesa may merit the top list. Good point. Perhaps a greater explanation of what his career and political influence were would help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I really am also very confused - I added the two-term Mayor of New York and the likely GOP Presidential nominee, yet they have "no clear influence in politics"? Sorry, but I don't understand at all - they are both very significant figures? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 23:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am confused as to how Bachmann is considered to have a real career but not Obama? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:58, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'm confused too. I accept that Chamberlain's later career was controversial but why on earth have (1) Harold MacMillan and (2) Alex Salmond been removed from the top list? (1) Decolonisation of Africa was a big ahievement and (2) like him or loath him, Salmond is probably the most effective politician in the UK today. Perhaps I could politely suggest that the contributions of certain editors are not being made with the benefit of a strong sense of history...? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:06, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Insight ==<br />
<br />
Hi folks. I believe I have just had a fascinating conservative insight, based on the current form of this list. I present it here for your perusal and hope that it will provoke discussion. Noting that there are very few influential liberals in the first list, I conclude that <br />
<br />
'''Nearly all influential liberals are professional politicians. In contrast, many influential conservatives hold "real" jobs prior to entering politics.''' <br />
<br />
This appears to be particularly true among conservatives whose views align with those of the Tea Party. I believe this insight is well-supported by the data presented here, as soon as one has appropriately defined "influential" and "real job". --[[User:PhilS33|PhilS33]] 09:17, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Superb insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Indeed. "As soon as one has appropriately defined 'influential' and 'real job.'" It's all about how you choose to define your terms. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:47, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Not necessarily. "Influential" and ""real job" are hardly arcane or technical terms - they are commonly understood by most people. Now of course influence is not a binary quality, but one can certainly say that the more influential, the more likely to have had a real job (or vice versa) without getting bogged down in pedantic definitions.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:04, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It seems like this is almost a truism. Those who hold real jobs will gain an understanding of the value of money and the damage caused by over-regulation and high taxes. Thus, they will tend to become more conservative with time. Those who never hold real jobs will have little grasp of the value of a dollar or the harm of government overreach, and will thus tend towards liberalism. It's not unlike the difference between a child who is expected to attend to chores and a part-time job in order to earn spending money, as opposed to one who is spoiled and freely given money without responsibility. The first child will learn to be independent and self-sufficient, while the second will learn to run to mommy and daddy (or, in the case of liberals, the government) with outstretched hands whenever money runs short. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:43, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
PhilS's insight looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy as far as this site is concerned. Politicians that conservatives don't approve of aren't included in the list at the top part of the page (or get removed from it as soon as Mr Schlafly spots them). Winston Churchill and Reinhard Heydrich had careers as military officers of about the same length of time and were two of the most influential politicians of any country in the 20th century. Which implies that having a real job before entering politics won't make you the kind of politician decent people would approve of. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:35, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The list is objective. Winston Churchill was a phenomenal writer and historian, and he had a significant political influence. That obviously warrants the top list. Reinhard Heydrich, in contrast, was an immoral underachiever outside of politics, and the horrific crimes of Nazism continued after Heydrich died at age 38.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::The list cannot be considered "objective" for a moment as you say, as long as former US Presidents, current Presidential primary candidates, sitting US Senators and Governors of States are not considered to have had "influence". It seems very strange that you would take such a view, I must say? --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 16:31, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Denis Healey==<br />
<br />
Denis Healey introduced monetarism to the British economy in the late seventies. If that's not influential, what is? <br />
<br />
As for the "obscure or otherwise inept Brits" section, A+ for childish humour, Z-- for political insight ~~Rafael<br />
::Hey, I tried to argue that a guy who [[Pierre Trudeau|gave his country a new constitution]] was influential, and got shot down for no discernable reason. Good luck with this. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The policy of every British Chancellor since 1976, except Gordon Brown, has essentially followed Healey's policies. He's much more highly regarded - including by conservatives - and has been much more influential in the long term than either Wilson or Callahan, the PMs in whose cabinets he served. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I've put DH back in the top list. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:02, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mandela ==<br />
<br />
Can Mandela be said to have had a 'real' career before politics? He was an aristocrat who ran away from an arranged marriage and worked for a few years as a solicitors clerk after being fired from manual employment. Hardly a career... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I see your point. It's not like he played a sport or sang songs, you know, really important careers. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 12:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'd say that being a popular singer is more significant than being fired from a factory and failing the law exams, especially given Mandela's privileged background. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]]<br />
<br />
== Putin ==<br />
<br />
"(I don't think the KGB is a career outside of government)", but Washington's military career, which was certainly a government job, counts? I too am confused. [[User:ACork|ACork]] 17:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Washington is listed for reasons more than his brilliant military career which, by the way, was not a government job like the KGB.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, 'working for The Government' can mean different things when applied to different people. Sounds very like Orwell's (that good working class Conservative) Newspeak. As you are moving the goalposts depending whether the person fits your agenda or not I'll leave you to it. By the way, both Churchill and Thatcher were Atheists. Godspeed [[User:ACork|ACork]] 12:35, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::A mostly volunteer army is hardly "the government" in the same sense that career KGB functionaries are. And, as I said, Washington had a distinguished career in land development.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "What is a beach-master"? ==<br />
<br />
Surprised a history teacher doesn't know this. It's a military officer in charge of a section of beach during an amphibious invasion. He's the guy who's in charge of making sure everything/everybody that lands on his section of the beach goes where it's supposed to and is responsible for keeping things running in a smooth and unobstructed manner. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: OK, that seems clear enough, thanks ... but if it isn't more what you describe, then I don't think it qualifies as a significant career for the purposes of this list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ike ==<br />
<br />
What part of his career is there to discuss? He was an officer from more or less the midway point of WWI and kept getting promoted until he was made "Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe" culminating in the organisation and leading of D Day. He then became NATO supreme commander in Europe from 1951 until he ran for president in 1954. And that's just the highlights! I understand that Ike is not popular on this site, but lets not pretend that he didn't have a significant pre politics career. The very reason he won two landslide elections was because of his pre-politics career. Unless someone can give a coherent argument to the contrary, I will move him up to the top section. (And I don't think it can be argued he didn't have influence - his role in ending the Korean war, his moderating the demands of the Taft led senate all point to a significant influence, for good or bad). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Without objection; it is so moved. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== RE: John Major ==<br />
<br />
John Major was downgraded, and described as inept and obscure. I'd like to make a couple of points. John Major left school at 16, with only 3 O-levels. But he studied hard by correspondence course, and taught himself three more: 'British Constitution,' 'Economics,' 'Mathematics.' He helped with his father's small, failing business, and worked as a clerk. His father died, and that year, he joined the Young Conservatives, got a job with the London Electricity Board (and studied banking by correspondence while working a full time job). He became a banker with Standard Chartered Bank and became a senior executive who traveled across Africa for them. He famously began making speeches about economic conservative principles, standing on a box, at his local market, and became a Conservative Member of Parliament. He went on to be Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher, and succeeded her as Prime Minister.<br />
<br />
To me, somebody who didn't do very well at school, but worked very hard to better himself, and became a senior banking executive (remember that getting into such jobs without Oxford/Cambridge education or family connections is very difficult), then became the director of economic policy under THATCHER and then went onto be Prime Minister is a veritable conservative legend, who indeed had a solid career. He could, certainly, have earned more as a banking executive than as a politician. <br />
<br />
Now, let's talk about influence. If directing economic policy under Thatcher isn't influence enough, lets talk about other things. He famously convinced George Bush Sr to support no fly zones in the Gulf War. If convincing the American President of something isn't influence, what is? In 1992, with Major as Leader, the conservative party gained more votes than any other British political party has ever gained in an election. More than Thatcher or Churchill ever gained! Major's Back to Basics campaign emphasized the family values which sadly were absent from the last few years of Thatcher's administration. John major did as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else: And lets remember, that's one of the most successful cases of defeating terrorism ever. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 23:32, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You state your arguments very well. Thanks - I learned from your comments. But what is John Major's '''''influence'''''? It seems Major didn't recognize the importance of social issues ... and perhaps his somewhat traditional career was part of the problem. Most on the list have unique careers that enable them to bring something insightful to politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mustafa Kemal ==<br />
<br />
I regards to Mustafa Kemal I personally think that his longstanding service record in the Turkish forces and his driving force in the Young Turks movement makes him a certain candidate for a politician who had a real career. No peanut farming or so-called organizing for him. A proud member of his country's armed forces.<br />
--[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 23:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You may be right. Honestly, I don't know enough about Kemal's career to say. Was his military career distinguished?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am aware that he won twenty four medals throughout his career. Primarily awarded for distinguished service during the First World War. As well as one awarded during the war of independence. His military command record is a mixed bag i believe. Though by all accounts he seems to have been a good commander and a dutiful soldier. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=899603Blitzkrieg2011-08-11T03:57:13Z<p>TaylorH: /* Blitzkrieg after the war */</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''blitzkrieg''' is an operational level military doctrine which calls for a quick surprise attack by massive ground and air forces. "Blitzkrieg" is from the German words for lighting ("''blitz''") and war ("''krieg''"). The term was not used by [[Germany|German]] military planners, originating at the [[Propaganda]] Ministry of [[Josef Goebbels]]. It was used in press accounts to describe the lightning speed of the German military during [[World War II]]. Modern American "Shock and Awe" doctrine is based upon the lessons of blitzkrieg.<br />
<br />
==Basic Requirements and Features==<br />
<br />
Blitzkrieg or maneuver is based on the idea of "gaps and surfaces" or as the Germans called it "Flaechen und Luekentaktik", which means the tactics of surfaces and gaps. The basic intent of blitzkrieg is to avoid those points which are "surfaces" or hard points in the enemy line and target "gaps" or weakly defended areas. This was further developed by Basil Liddell Hart's concept of expanding torrent system tactic. The idea with this was to act like water: You poke and prod at the enemy's lines and, when a weak point is found, attack it and expand the breach in the line, just as flowing water would do to a weak dam, thus causing a massive flow through it. In other words, rather than throwing strength against strength as in attrition-oriented forms of combat, you focus on throwing your strength against the enemy's weakness.<br />
<br />
This requires what is known as recon pull, or another way of saying it is have your reconnaissance assets find the gaps and then they exploit them, bringing more and more assets with them as they go. This is different from more conventional forms of attack where it is focused on the commander of the formations essentially pushing units forward, whether it be a gap or a surface in the enemy lines.<br />
<br />
If suitable gaps cannot be found, they are created via the use of "Stosstruppentaktik" or shock troop tactics. This is when a combination of suppression (via artillery or other assets) assault (with infantry and armor) and exploitation (mainly with armor) is used. This is essentially punching a hole in the enemy lines at a desirable point. You suppress the enemy in order to keep his head down and prevent him from engaging and have the assault happen as soon as is possible after the suppressive fire is finished. Once this is done, the committing of what is generally a large reserve happens once the initial assault is successful. <br />
<br />
Another way of forming gaps was via the use of support attacks which could force the enemy to redeploy his assets thus creating weak points in his lines that can be exploited. <br />
<br />
Those points that are considered strong points or surfaces are generally bypassed and allowed to weaken due to it being cut off from its support. In this way blitzkrieg also dislocates the enemy in space. <br />
<br />
Because blitzkrieg is more fluid in terms of maneuver and as such the speed with which situations change, it requires commanders to be close to the action rather than being behind the lines as what the stereotype was of generals from WW1. Guderian and Patton were known for this lead from the front leadership style. The reason that leaders must be up front is so that they can be able to provide the needed leadership at the decisive time at the decisive point. This allows for faster decision making and makes it so that the enemy is dislocated in time as well as space. This would be described as getting inside of your opponent's decision cycle for you are able to make it so that the opponent is reacting to you, if this continues there is the risk that his actions will be rendered obsolescent and as such paralyzes his ability to react to you.<br />
<br />
Another requirement is to allow subordinates the ability to act independently based on what the commander's intent is. This allows for decisions made on the fly and helps to speed up the decision cycle. This is called "auftragstaktik" or mission tactics. It requires a combination of trust within the command structure and common ideas and experiences in terms of tactics and training for this to be successful. A commander must trust that his subordinates not only understand his intent but also must trust that they will be accurate in reporting the situations that they are facing on the front. <br />
<br />
One of the risks of engaging in this style of warfare is that what you perceive as a gap may actually be a surface. If this happens the commander may run into what is known as a "fire sack" or a large scale ambush. <br />
<br />
==Before World War II==<br />
<br />
Colonel John Fuller, the chief of staff of the British Tank Corps, is credited with developing this tactic after his extreme disappointment with the effect of tanks during World War I. His ideas, which were ignored by the British Army, called for long-range mass tank attacks. He envisioned this attack to be supported by air power as well as motorized infantry and artillery support. He wrote two books in the 1920s which detailed his ideas: ''Reformation of War'' and ''Foundation of the Science of War''. In 1926, the German Army began ordering tanks and vehicles which would allow them to implement Colonel Fuller's ideas. <ref>http://www.lycos.com/info/blitzkrieg--german-wehrmacht.html?page=2</ref><ref>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWblitzkreig.htm</ref><br />
<br />
In 1937 [[Heinz Guderian]] wrote the book ''Achtung - Panzer!'' describing the combined arms tactics used initially by the Germans in WWII and later on by armies throughout the world. The Germans tested an application of these tactics in 1938 during the [[Spanish Civil War]] and as a result [[German High Command]] formulated plans to dismantle Polish defenses in 1939. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9068990/Spanish-Civil-War</ref><br />
<br />
==During World War II==<br />
<br />
Blitzkrieg was a maneuver tactic where armored columns would break through the enemy lines, supported by artillery and attack aircraft. Once the columns were through the line, they would not stop but continue into the enemy rear, disrupting their supply lines and cutting off units. The armored columns were followed by infantry units that would exploit the gaps and surround the isolated enemy units. The tactic worked most effectively in Europe against the French and the Netherlands, and in the beginning of the conflict against the Soviet Union. Its success was due to a combination of surprise and favorable terrain.<br />
<br />
There was three flaws to the Blitzkrieg tactic. First, it was heavily dependent on good weather and good terrain. If the terrain was hilly, combat was in an urban area, or if the weather turned the ground muddy (as in the Soviet Union), the armored units would slow down and become vulnerable to anti-tank units or worse to the enemy being able to react to attacks more effectively. <br />
<br />
Second, air support was vital. Without it, the tanks were vulnerable to counter-attacks from enemy aircraft. This is true with all operations that focus heavily on the use of armored fighting vehicles, whether it be maneuver oriented or more attrition oriented. As the war progressed and the Germans lost control of the air, their panzer units suffered heavy losses from Allied air-to-ground aircraft such as the Soviet IL-2 and American [[P-47|P-47 Thunderbolt]]. German success in the Battle of the Bulge depended in part on the existence of cloud cover that would keep Allied air forces grounded. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of blitzkreig.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Third, the blitzkrieg could be broken up by channeling the attack (holding the flanks) and attacking the point where the infantry and armored units met. This would separate the two and expose the armor to counter-attacks. The French and British used this tactic at the [[Battle of Arras]] in 1940, but lacked the armored units required to exploit their limited success.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Moving into poland.jpg]]<br />
<br />
The Soviets used all the above and had the additional fortune of vast swaths of land to design a defense-in-depth. As the panzer units moved farther and farther from their supplies, gaps would appear in their columns. These could then be attacked to break up the armor. Also, the Soviets used minefields to further disrupt the German armor.<br />
<br />
[[Image:German invasion.-.jpg]]<br />
<br />
By 1944, blitzkrieg as a German tactic was finished. The last actual appearance of blitzkrieg in the war when several German Armies smashed through the weak Allied lines in the Ardennes forest in what became known as the Battle of the Bulge. Luckily, their momentum did not hold, which marked an end to blitzkrieg warfare in WWII.<br />
== Blitzkrieg after the war ==<br />
<br />
The first significant use of blitzkrieg tactics in the post-war era was in the 1967 [[Six Day War]] when Israel, after destroying almost the entire Egyptian air force on the ground in a little more than an hour, sent a three pronged tank attack south to seize the [[Sinai peninsula]] and north to occupy the [[Golan heights]].<ref>http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1967/Six-Day-War/12303074818188-2/</ref><br />
<br />
The ground phase of the first Gulf War, lasting only four days, followed a blitzkrieg-style attack with US, British, and French tanks that poured deep into southern Iraq in what General [[Norman Schwarzkopf]] termed a "Hail Mary" pass before hooking right and cutting off the escaping Iraqi forces, which were then demolished in detail by tanks and aircraft. <br />
<br />
The resumption of hostilities in Iraq that led to the [[Iraq War]] relied upon "Shock and Awe" a derivative of blitzkrieg doctrine. Using a series of quick and lightning attacks across the Iraqi border the US military was able to shock the Iraqi armed forces into submission. It was also a tactic used since the [[American Civil War]], when massed artillery bombardment was first used to weaken and demoralize enemy forces before an advance.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
* Citino, Robert Michael. ''Quest for Decisive Victory: From Stalemate to Blitzkrieg in Europe, 1899-1940'' (2002) 372 pages <br />
* Deighton, Len. '' Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk'' (2000) 295 pages <br />
* Fanning, William J. "The Origin of the Term 'Blitzkrieg': Another View," ''Journal of Military History,'' Vol. 61, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 283-302 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2953968 in JSTOR]<br />
* Frieser, K.H. ''The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West'' (2005) [http://books.google.com/books?id=7Y0MxdP-ws4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:The+intitle:Blitzkrieg+intitle:Legend+intitle:The+intitle:1940+intitle:Campaign+intitle:in+intitle:the&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Kaufmann, J. E. ''Hitler's Blitzkrieg campaigns: the invasion and defense of Western Europe'' (2002) 382 pages; [http://books.google.com/books?id=65-v0wkrWYEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:Blitzkrieg&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2000&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search] <br />
* Lind,William S. ''Maneuver Warfare Handbook'' (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985) [http://books.google.com/books?id=yoV8zcCOV8kC&dq=intitle:Maneuver+intitle:Warfare+intitle:Handbook&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]<br />
<br />
[[Category:World War II]]<br />
[[Category:Military]]</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&diff=899600Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career2011-08-11T03:47:57Z<p>TaylorH: /* Mustafa Kemal */</p>
<hr />
<div>==This is interesting==<br />
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significance, and alphabetization ==<br />
<br />
The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.<br />
<br />
Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Land surveying ==<br />
<br />
I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Eisenhower ==<br />
<br />
He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ==<br />
<br />
Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am sure this was not the authors intent, but the above statement could come of as racist. I think he meant to say "a Black Muslim" - which is a political group. But by inserting atheist in between, it looks like "black" is being used in a perjorative way. The author might want to rephrase it.--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 17:08, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ??? ==<br />
<br />
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Definition of influence ==<br />
<br />
Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain the the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
<br />
::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== LBJ??? ==<br />
<br />
LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Problem with organization ==<br />
<br />
I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?<br />
<br />
I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Duke of Wellington ==<br />
<br />
Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The alternative to Chamberlain as PM in 1937 was Halifax, in which case there would have been more enthusiastic appeasement and no military build-up, and Britain would have become the western outpost of the Reich. No, Chamberlain's judgement in foreign policy wasn't immaculate but considering that his Foreign Secretary was Halifax and that Parliament, ''especially Labour'', was very strongly pro-appeasement, it wasn't as bad as ''The Guilty Men'' made out. Your line about "typical inter-war Tory" is incorrect; his achievements in improving working conditions and in economics were genuine. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Sorry, but there wasn't really a choice in '37. Baldwin advised the King to send for Chamberlain, and he did. The choice was Halifax vs Churchill a few years later. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: The debate took place within the Tory party. They chose the outstanding domestic politician of the first half of the 20th century although it would shortly become apparent that the expertise the PM would need was in foreign affairs. (But had they chosen the leading foreign affairs expert, history would have been disastrously different...) Modern historians are much less harsh on Chamberlain than their predecessors. If he had stood up to Germany in 1938, he would have given Hitler the opportunity to drag Britain into a war which she could not have won, under-equipped and without the support of France. The Czechoslovak economy and military was relatively strong but too small to resist the Wehrmacht. The real damage was done about 5 years earlier, when Baldwin refused to re-arm. Chamberlain's own policy as PM was the classic, "if you hope for peace, prepare for war" but that doesn't work against a madman. It's now generally understood that Chamberlain did ''not'' trust Hitler but felt he had no alternative in the Munich Conference; he certainly had no sympathy with the Nazis, unlike some more aristocratic Tories. It's also widely recognised that his very real achievements as Chancellor put Britain into a position in which rearmament from 1937 onwards was economically possible. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:53, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ron Paul ==<br />
<br />
For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.<br />
<br />
The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==<br />
<br />
Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Regarding Heydrich and Lenin: you've now placed them in the category of people whose career outside politics needs discussion. They were both thoroughly evil people but they both had significant careers before going into politics and were both extremely significant (negatively) as politicians. When you say, "Significant politicians", do you mean, "Significant politicians whose policies Andy Schlafly approves of"? Please let me know because if you do, perhaps it would not be a good use of my time or that of other editors to attempt to assist you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trudeau, Levesque, Parizeau, Mulroney as "undeserving" ==<br />
<br />
By what definition are these four men, who together and in opposition completely changed the political landscape of a country that happens to be our largest trading partner "undeserving"? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I would consider them morally undeserving. Levesque and Parizeau were separatists. Mulroney was corrupt and Trudeau was a socialist. In terms of influence, I might say Levesque because he was the first PQ premier. Trudeau and Mulroney were long serving but did not really do that much to change the country. Parizeau was a failure.<br />
:This article isn't about moral purity. Read the title of the article: "Politicians who had a real career." They were politicians. They were important politicians. They had careers before embarking in politics. Therefore, they deserve to be in the article. Your assertion that Trudeau and Mulroney didn't change the country is absurd. Trudeau, if he did nothing else, repatriated the constitution and gave the country the Charter of rights and Freedoms. Mulroney, if he did nothing else, opened the door for the a complete retooling of Canada's concept of a "social safety net." Parizeau might not have succeeded in bringing about Quebec independence, but he came very close, and Quebec-Canada relations have never been the same since 1995; moreover he was the financial brains behind the creation and expansion of "Quebec. Inc in the 1970s and 1980s. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:38, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Headlines are concise out of necessity. Implicit in the headline for this entry is the word "influential", as has already been explained before on this talk page. Someone who merely "opened the door" doesn't count; doormen are not counted among the most influential people, unless they do something in addition to opening doors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Pierre Trudeau wrote a new constitution for Canada. Writing a new constitution for a country is being a doorman? Look at Canada in 1983 when he left office, and look at Canada when Mulroney left office--do those countries look at all the same to you? Look at Quebec in 1976 before Levesque. Look at Quebec when Parizeau left office -- does that look at all like the same place? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Honestly, Canada does look the same to me throughout that period: beautiful landscape, terrific people, but headed in the misguided [[liberal]] direction. It's a tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Confusion ==<br />
<br />
Is there some special set of criteria here? Why are people like Margaret Thatcher being deleted while others like Lech Walesa are being moved to different sections? It's pretty clear that these two had significant careers before becoming politicians (Thatcher's science background was often referenced during her term as PM). I don't see why they shouldn't make the list, while Michele Bachmann, who has had no career outside politics at all, makes the top list. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I would suggest including an introductory paragraph at the top, to help clarify what exactly this is about. Certainly, Lech Walesa had a very clear and very real career, so why does he need "further discussion?" It is, I admit, an interesting idea to analyze the pre-politics careers of those that would be our leaders. But I'm not sure of the intentions of this essay nor its contents.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thatcher did not have a real career outside of government. Majoring in chemistry is not a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::[[Homeschooling]] 5 kids and helping raise about two-dozen additional foster children, as [[Michele Bachmann]] did, is a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I don't consider homeschooling 5 kids and raising foster kids a career. Nothing against homeschooling, but anyone can do it (although its hard to do it well). Same with raising foster kids. In Canada, most of the foster parents are on welfare and take in kids because the money does not come off of their cheques. Do they have careers ? Bachmann has two law degrees and was a successful lawyer. That is not something everyone could do. That is what I would call a career--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 18:01, 9 August 2011 (EDT) <br />
<br />
<br />
::Lech Walesa may merit the top list. Good point. Perhaps a greater explanation of what his career and political influence were would help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I really am also very confused - I added the two-term Mayor of New York and the likely GOP Presidential nominee, yet they have "no clear influence in politics"? Sorry, but I don't understand at all - they are both very significant figures? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 23:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am confused as to how Bachmann is considered to have a real career but not Obama? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:58, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'm confused too. I accept that Chamberlain's later career was controversial but why on earth have (1) Harold MacMillan and (2) Alex Salmond been removed from the top list? (1) Decolonisation of Africa was a big ahievement and (2) like him or loath him, Salmond is probably the most effective politician in the UK today. Perhaps I could politely suggest that the contributions of certain editors are not being made with the benefit of a strong sense of history...? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:06, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Insight ==<br />
<br />
Hi folks. I believe I have just had a fascinating conservative insight, based on the current form of this list. I present it here for your perusal and hope that it will provoke discussion. Noting that there are very few influential liberals in the first list, I conclude that <br />
<br />
'''Nearly all influential liberals are professional politicians. In contrast, many influential conservatives hold "real" jobs prior to entering politics.''' <br />
<br />
This appears to be particularly true among conservatives whose views align with those of the Tea Party. I believe this insight is well-supported by the data presented here, as soon as one has appropriately defined "influential" and "real job". --[[User:PhilS33|PhilS33]] 09:17, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Superb insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Indeed. "As soon as one has appropriately defined 'influential' and 'real job.'" It's all about how you choose to define your terms. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:47, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Not necessarily. "Influential" and ""real job" are hardly arcane or technical terms - they are commonly understood by most people. Now of course influence is not a binary quality, but one can certainly say that the more influential, the more likely to have had a real job (or vice versa) without getting bogged down in pedantic definitions.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:04, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It seems like this is almost a truism. Those who hold real jobs will gain an understanding of the value of money and the damage caused by over-regulation and high taxes. Thus, they will tend to become more conservative with time. Those who never hold real jobs will have little grasp of the value of a dollar or the harm of government overreach, and will thus tend towards liberalism. It's not unlike the difference between a child who is expected to attend to chores and a part-time job in order to earn spending money, as opposed to one who is spoiled and freely given money without responsibility. The first child will learn to be independent and self-sufficient, while the second will learn to run to mommy and daddy (or, in the case of liberals, the government) with outstretched hands whenever money runs short. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:43, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
PhilS's insight looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy as far as this site is concerned. Politicians that conservatives don't approve of aren't included in the list at the top part of the page (or get removed from it as soon as Mr Schlafly spots them). Winston Churchill and Reinhard Heydrich had careers as military officers of about the same length of time and were two of the most influential politicians of any country in the 20th century. Which implies that having a real job before entering politics won't make you the kind of politician decent people would approve of. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:35, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The list is objective. Winston Churchill was a phenomenal writer and historian, and he had a significant political influence. That obviously warrants the top list. Reinhard Heydrich, in contrast, was an immoral underachiever outside of politics, and the horrific crimes of Nazism continued after Heydrich died at age 38.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::The list cannot be considered "objective" for a moment as you say, as long as former US Presidents, current Presidential primary candidates, sitting US Senators and Governors of States are not considered to have had "influence". It seems very strange that you would take such a view, I must say? --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 16:31, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Denis Healey==<br />
<br />
Denis Healey introduced monetarism to the British economy in the late seventies. If that's not influential, what is? <br />
<br />
As for the "obscure or otherwise inept Brits" section, A+ for childish humour, Z-- for political insight ~~Rafael<br />
::Hey, I tried to argue that a guy who [[Pierre Trudeau|gave his country a new constitution]] was influential, and got shot down for no discernable reason. Good luck with this. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The policy of every British Chancellor since 1976, except Gordon Brown, has essentially followed Healey's policies. He's much more highly regarded - including by conservatives - and has been much more influential in the long term than either Wilson or Callahan, the PMs in whose cabinets he served. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I've put DH back in the top list. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:02, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mandela ==<br />
<br />
Can Mandela be said to have had a 'real' career before politics? He was an aristocrat who ran away from an arranged marriage and worked for a few years as a solicitors clerk after being fired from manual employment. Hardly a career... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I see your point. It's not like he played a sport or sang songs, you know, really important careers. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 12:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'd say that being a popular singer is more significant than being fired from a factory and failing the law exams, especially given Mandela's privileged background. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]]<br />
<br />
== Putin ==<br />
<br />
"(I don't think the KGB is a career outside of government)", but Washington's military career, which was certainly a government job, counts? I too am confused. [[User:ACork|ACork]] 17:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Washington is listed for reasons more than his brilliant military career which, by the way, was not a government job like the KGB.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, 'working for The Government' can mean different things when applied to different people. Sounds very like Orwell's (that good working class Conservative) Newspeak. As you are moving the goalposts depending whether the person fits your agenda or not I'll leave you to it. By the way, both Churchill and Thatcher were Atheists. Godspeed [[User:ACork|ACork]] 12:35, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "What is a beach-master"? ==<br />
<br />
Surprised a history teacher doesn't know this. It's a military officer in charge of a section of beach during an amphibious invasion. He's the guy who's in charge of making sure everything/everybody that lands on his section of the beach goes where it's supposed to and is responsible for keeping things running in a smooth and unobstructed manner. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: OK, that seems clear enough, thanks ... but if it isn't more what you describe, then I don't think it qualifies as a significant career for the purposes of this list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ike ==<br />
<br />
What part of his career is there to discuss? He was an officer from more or less the midway point of WWI and kept getting promoted until he was made "Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe" culminating in the organisation and leading of D Day. He then became NATO supreme commander in Europe from 1951 until he ran for president in 1954. And that's just the highlights! I understand that Ike is not popular on this site, but lets not pretend that he didn't have a significant pre politics career. The very reason he won two landslide elections was because of his pre-politics career. Unless someone can give a coherent argument to the contrary, I will move him up to the top section. (And I don't think it can be argued he didn't have influence - his role in ending the Korean war, his moderating the demands of the Taft led senate all point to a significant influence, for good or bad). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Without objection; it is so moved. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== RE: John Major ==<br />
<br />
John Major was downgraded, and described as inept and obscure. I'd like to make a couple of points. John Major left school at 16, with only 3 O-levels. But he studied hard by correspondence course, and taught himself three more: 'British Constitution,' 'Economics,' 'Mathematics.' He helped with his father's small, failing business, and worked as a clerk. His father died, and that year, he joined the Young Conservatives, got a job with the London Electricity Board (and studied banking by correspondence while working a full time job). He became a banker with Standard Chartered Bank and became a senior executive who traveled across Africa for them. He famously began making speeches about economic conservative principles, standing on a box, at his local market, and became a Conservative Member of Parliament. He went on to be Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher, and succeeded her as Prime Minister.<br />
<br />
To me, somebody who didn't do very well at school, but worked very hard to better himself, and became a senior banking executive (remember that getting into such jobs without Oxford/Cambridge education or family connections is very difficult), then became the director of economic policy under THATCHER and then went onto be Prime Minister is a veritable conservative legend, who indeed had a solid career. He could, certainly, have earned more as a banking executive than as a politician. <br />
<br />
Now, let's talk about influence. If directing economic policy under Thatcher isn't influence enough, lets talk about other things. He famously convinced George Bush Sr to support no fly zones in the Gulf War. If convincing the American President of something isn't influence, what is? In 1992, with Major as Leader, the conservative party gained more votes than any other British political party has ever gained in an election. More than Thatcher or Churchill ever gained! Major's Back to Basics campaign emphasized the family values which sadly were absent from the last few years of Thatcher's administration. John major did as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else: And lets remember, that's one of the most successful cases of defeating terrorism ever. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 23:32, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mustafa Kemal ==<br />
<br />
I regards to Mustafa Kemal I personally think that his longstanding service record in the Turkish forces and his driving force in the Young Turks movement makes him a certain candidate for a politician who had a real career. No peanut farming or so-called organizing for him. A proud member of his country's armed forces.<br />
--[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 23:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)</div>TaylorHhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&diff=899599Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career2011-08-11T03:47:31Z<p>TaylorH: /* Mustafa Kemal */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>==This is interesting==<br />
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significance, and alphabetization ==<br />
<br />
The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.<br />
<br />
Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Land surveying ==<br />
<br />
I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Eisenhower ==<br />
<br />
He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ==<br />
<br />
Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am sure this was not the authors intent, but the above statement could come of as racist. I think he meant to say "a Black Muslim" - which is a political group. But by inserting atheist in between, it looks like "black" is being used in a perjorative way. The author might want to rephrase it.--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 17:08, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Obama ??? ==<br />
<br />
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Definition of influence ==<br />
<br />
Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain the the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011<br />
<br />
::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== LBJ??? ==<br />
<br />
LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Problem with organization ==<br />
<br />
I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?<br />
<br />
I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Duke of Wellington ==<br />
<br />
Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The alternative to Chamberlain as PM in 1937 was Halifax, in which case there would have been more enthusiastic appeasement and no military build-up, and Britain would have become the western outpost of the Reich. No, Chamberlain's judgement in foreign policy wasn't immaculate but considering that his Foreign Secretary was Halifax and that Parliament, ''especially Labour'', was very strongly pro-appeasement, it wasn't as bad as ''The Guilty Men'' made out. Your line about "typical inter-war Tory" is incorrect; his achievements in improving working conditions and in economics were genuine. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Sorry, but there wasn't really a choice in '37. Baldwin advised the King to send for Chamberlain, and he did. The choice was Halifax vs Churchill a few years later. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: The debate took place within the Tory party. They chose the outstanding domestic politician of the first half of the 20th century although it would shortly become apparent that the expertise the PM would need was in foreign affairs. (But had they chosen the leading foreign affairs expert, history would have been disastrously different...) Modern historians are much less harsh on Chamberlain than their predecessors. If he had stood up to Germany in 1938, he would have given Hitler the opportunity to drag Britain into a war which she could not have won, under-equipped and without the support of France. The Czechoslovak economy and military was relatively strong but too small to resist the Wehrmacht. The real damage was done about 5 years earlier, when Baldwin refused to re-arm. Chamberlain's own policy as PM was the classic, "if you hope for peace, prepare for war" but that doesn't work against a madman. It's now generally understood that Chamberlain did ''not'' trust Hitler but felt he had no alternative in the Munich Conference; he certainly had no sympathy with the Nazis, unlike some more aristocratic Tories. It's also widely recognised that his very real achievements as Chancellor put Britain into a position in which rearmament from 1937 onwards was economically possible. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:53, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ron Paul ==<br />
<br />
For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.<br />
<br />
The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==<br />
<br />
Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Regarding Heydrich and Lenin: you've now placed them in the category of people whose career outside politics needs discussion. They were both thoroughly evil people but they both had significant careers before going into politics and were both extremely significant (negatively) as politicians. When you say, "Significant politicians", do you mean, "Significant politicians whose policies Andy Schlafly approves of"? Please let me know because if you do, perhaps it would not be a good use of my time or that of other editors to attempt to assist you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trudeau, Levesque, Parizeau, Mulroney as "undeserving" ==<br />
<br />
By what definition are these four men, who together and in opposition completely changed the political landscape of a country that happens to be our largest trading partner "undeserving"? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I would consider them morally undeserving. Levesque and Parizeau were separatists. Mulroney was corrupt and Trudeau was a socialist. In terms of influence, I might say Levesque because he was the first PQ premier. Trudeau and Mulroney were long serving but did not really do that much to change the country. Parizeau was a failure.<br />
:This article isn't about moral purity. Read the title of the article: "Politicians who had a real career." They were politicians. They were important politicians. They had careers before embarking in politics. Therefore, they deserve to be in the article. Your assertion that Trudeau and Mulroney didn't change the country is absurd. Trudeau, if he did nothing else, repatriated the constitution and gave the country the Charter of rights and Freedoms. Mulroney, if he did nothing else, opened the door for the a complete retooling of Canada's concept of a "social safety net." Parizeau might not have succeeded in bringing about Quebec independence, but he came very close, and Quebec-Canada relations have never been the same since 1995; moreover he was the financial brains behind the creation and expansion of "Quebec. Inc in the 1970s and 1980s. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:38, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Headlines are concise out of necessity. Implicit in the headline for this entry is the word "influential", as has already been explained before on this talk page. Someone who merely "opened the door" doesn't count; doormen are not counted among the most influential people, unless they do something in addition to opening doors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Pierre Trudeau wrote a new constitution for Canada. Writing a new constitution for a country is being a doorman? Look at Canada in 1983 when he left office, and look at Canada when Mulroney left office--do those countries look at all the same to you? Look at Quebec in 1976 before Levesque. Look at Quebec when Parizeau left office -- does that look at all like the same place? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Honestly, Canada does look the same to me throughout that period: beautiful landscape, terrific people, but headed in the misguided [[liberal]] direction. It's a tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Confusion ==<br />
<br />
Is there some special set of criteria here? Why are people like Margaret Thatcher being deleted while others like Lech Walesa are being moved to different sections? It's pretty clear that these two had significant careers before becoming politicians (Thatcher's science background was often referenced during her term as PM). I don't see why they shouldn't make the list, while Michele Bachmann, who has had no career outside politics at all, makes the top list. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I would suggest including an introductory paragraph at the top, to help clarify what exactly this is about. Certainly, Lech Walesa had a very clear and very real career, so why does he need "further discussion?" It is, I admit, an interesting idea to analyze the pre-politics careers of those that would be our leaders. But I'm not sure of the intentions of this essay nor its contents.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thatcher did not have a real career outside of government. Majoring in chemistry is not a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::[[Homeschooling]] 5 kids and helping raise about two-dozen additional foster children, as [[Michele Bachmann]] did, is a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I don't consider homeschooling 5 kids and raising foster kids a career. Nothing against homeschooling, but anyone can do it (although its hard to do it well). Same with raising foster kids. In Canada, most of the foster parents are on welfare and take in kids because the money does not come off of their cheques. Do they have careers ? Bachmann has two law degrees and was a successful lawyer. That is not something everyone could do. That is what I would call a career--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 18:01, 9 August 2011 (EDT) <br />
<br />
<br />
::Lech Walesa may merit the top list. Good point. Perhaps a greater explanation of what his career and political influence were would help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I really am also very confused - I added the two-term Mayor of New York and the likely GOP Presidential nominee, yet they have "no clear influence in politics"? Sorry, but I don't understand at all - they are both very significant figures? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 23:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am confused as to how Bachmann is considered to have a real career but not Obama? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:58, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'm confused too. I accept that Chamberlain's later career was controversial but why on earth have (1) Harold MacMillan and (2) Alex Salmond been removed from the top list? (1) Decolonisation of Africa was a big ahievement and (2) like him or loath him, Salmond is probably the most effective politician in the UK today. Perhaps I could politely suggest that the contributions of certain editors are not being made with the benefit of a strong sense of history...? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:06, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Insight ==<br />
<br />
Hi folks. I believe I have just had a fascinating conservative insight, based on the current form of this list. I present it here for your perusal and hope that it will provoke discussion. Noting that there are very few influential liberals in the first list, I conclude that <br />
<br />
'''Nearly all influential liberals are professional politicians. In contrast, many influential conservatives hold "real" jobs prior to entering politics.''' <br />
<br />
This appears to be particularly true among conservatives whose views align with those of the Tea Party. I believe this insight is well-supported by the data presented here, as soon as one has appropriately defined "influential" and "real job". --[[User:PhilS33|PhilS33]] 09:17, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Superb insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Indeed. "As soon as one has appropriately defined 'influential' and 'real job.'" It's all about how you choose to define your terms. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:47, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Not necessarily. "Influential" and ""real job" are hardly arcane or technical terms - they are commonly understood by most people. Now of course influence is not a binary quality, but one can certainly say that the more influential, the more likely to have had a real job (or vice versa) without getting bogged down in pedantic definitions.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:04, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It seems like this is almost a truism. Those who hold real jobs will gain an understanding of the value of money and the damage caused by over-regulation and high taxes. Thus, they will tend to become more conservative with time. Those who never hold real jobs will have little grasp of the value of a dollar or the harm of government overreach, and will thus tend towards liberalism. It's not unlike the difference between a child who is expected to attend to chores and a part-time job in order to earn spending money, as opposed to one who is spoiled and freely given money without responsibility. The first child will learn to be independent and self-sufficient, while the second will learn to run to mommy and daddy (or, in the case of liberals, the government) with outstretched hands whenever money runs short. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:43, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
PhilS's insight looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy as far as this site is concerned. Politicians that conservatives don't approve of aren't included in the list at the top part of the page (or get removed from it as soon as Mr Schlafly spots them). Winston Churchill and Reinhard Heydrich had careers as military officers of about the same length of time and were two of the most influential politicians of any country in the 20th century. Which implies that having a real job before entering politics won't make you the kind of politician decent people would approve of. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:35, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The list is objective. Winston Churchill was a phenomenal writer and historian, and he had a significant political influence. That obviously warrants the top list. Reinhard Heydrich, in contrast, was an immoral underachiever outside of politics, and the horrific crimes of Nazism continued after Heydrich died at age 38.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::The list cannot be considered "objective" for a moment as you say, as long as former US Presidents, current Presidential primary candidates, sitting US Senators and Governors of States are not considered to have had "influence". It seems very strange that you would take such a view, I must say? --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 16:31, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Denis Healey==<br />
<br />
Denis Healey introduced monetarism to the British economy in the late seventies. If that's not influential, what is? <br />
<br />
As for the "obscure or otherwise inept Brits" section, A+ for childish humour, Z-- for political insight ~~Rafael<br />
::Hey, I tried to argue that a guy who [[Pierre Trudeau|gave his country a new constitution]] was influential, and got shot down for no discernable reason. Good luck with this. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The policy of every British Chancellor since 1976, except Gordon Brown, has essentially followed Healey's policies. He's much more highly regarded - including by conservatives - and has been much more influential in the long term than either Wilson or Callahan, the PMs in whose cabinets he served. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I've put DH back in the top list. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:02, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mandela ==<br />
<br />
Can Mandela be said to have had a 'real' career before politics? He was an aristocrat who ran away from an arranged marriage and worked for a few years as a solicitors clerk after being fired from manual employment. Hardly a career... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I see your point. It's not like he played a sport or sang songs, you know, really important careers. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 12:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I'd say that being a popular singer is more significant than being fired from a factory and failing the law exams, especially given Mandela's privileged background. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]]<br />
<br />
== Putin ==<br />
<br />
"(I don't think the KGB is a career outside of government)", but Washington's military career, which was certainly a government job, counts? I too am confused. [[User:ACork|ACork]] 17:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Washington is listed for reasons more than his brilliant military career which, by the way, was not a government job like the KGB.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, 'working for The Government' can mean different things when applied to different people. Sounds very like Orwell's (that good working class Conservative) Newspeak. As you are moving the goalposts depending whether the person fits your agenda or not I'll leave you to it. By the way, both Churchill and Thatcher were Atheists. Godspeed [[User:ACork|ACork]] 12:35, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "What is a beach-master"? ==<br />
<br />
Surprised a history teacher doesn't know this. It's a military officer in charge of a section of beach during an amphibious invasion. He's the guy who's in charge of making sure everything/everybody that lands on his section of the beach goes where it's supposed to and is responsible for keeping things running in a smooth and unobstructed manner. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: OK, that seems clear enough, thanks ... but if it isn't more what you describe, then I don't think it qualifies as a significant career for the purposes of this list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Ike ==<br />
<br />
What part of his career is there to discuss? He was an officer from more or less the midway point of WWI and kept getting promoted until he was made "Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe" culminating in the organisation and leading of D Day. He then became NATO supreme commander in Europe from 1951 until he ran for president in 1954. And that's just the highlights! I understand that Ike is not popular on this site, but lets not pretend that he didn't have a significant pre politics career. The very reason he won two landslide elections was because of his pre-politics career. Unless someone can give a coherent argument to the contrary, I will move him up to the top section. (And I don't think it can be argued he didn't have influence - his role in ending the Korean war, his moderating the demands of the Taft led senate all point to a significant influence, for good or bad). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Without objection; it is so moved. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== RE: John Major ==<br />
<br />
John Major was downgraded, and described as inept and obscure. I'd like to make a couple of points. John Major left school at 16, with only 3 O-levels. But he studied hard by correspondence course, and taught himself three more: 'British Constitution,' 'Economics,' 'Mathematics.' He helped with his father's small, failing business, and worked as a clerk. His father died, and that year, he joined the Young Conservatives, got a job with the London Electricity Board (and studied banking by correspondence while working a full time job). He became a banker with Standard Chartered Bank and became a senior executive who traveled across Africa for them. He famously began making speeches about economic conservative principles, standing on a box, at his local market, and became a Conservative Member of Parliament. He went on to be Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher, and succeeded her as Prime Minister.<br />
<br />
To me, somebody who didn't do very well at school, but worked very hard to better himself, and became a senior banking executive (remember that getting into such jobs without Oxford/Cambridge education or family connections is very difficult), then became the director of economic policy under THATCHER and then went onto be Prime Minister is a veritable conservative legend, who indeed had a solid career. He could, certainly, have earned more as a banking executive than as a politician. <br />
<br />
Now, let's talk about influence. If directing economic policy under Thatcher isn't influence enough, lets talk about other things. He famously convinced George Bush Sr to support no fly zones in the Gulf War. If convincing the American President of something isn't influence, what is? In 1992, with Major as Leader, the conservative party gained more votes than any other British political party has ever gained in an election. More than Thatcher or Churchill ever gained! Major's Back to Basics campaign emphasized the family values which sadly were absent from the last few years of Thatcher's administration. John major did as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else: And lets remember, that's one of the most successful cases of defeating terrorism ever. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 23:32, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mustafa Kemal ==<br />
<br />
I regards to Mustafa Kemal I personally think that his longstanding service record in the Turkish forces and his driving force in the Young Turks movement makes him a certain candidate for a politician who had a real career. No peanut farming or so-called organizing for him. A proud member of his country's armed forces.</div>TaylorH