What about this: the business of ruling other humans is the single most unsuited profession for human nature possible. Anyone who takes up the job will inevitably do badly, with or without malice.

To rule effectively is to SERVE. A point MISSED by 99.9999999% of the worlds authorities and rulers. (after all, who would want to be a SERVANT when you are already KING)

Stoog: thanks for the link.

"the tireless champions of the overdog"... Indeed.

But let's not forget the mental health angle.
Killing the natives is prozac for the rich.

On the Brits, I'd go w/ wicked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung%2C_drawn_and_quartered

Yeah, yeah, but let's not let the sheep get off free. So many love being ruled. Look at the Stalin nostalgia today, or the never-ending fascination with Hitler. Evil, shmevil, they did it their way. A leader is a leader is a leader.
And being led means never having to think for yourself. Ahhhh! Open another Bud Light.

Messianic megalomaniacs or cynical opportunists?

I am not sure politics attracts the brightest people in the world. Or perhaps you need to consider what motivates people to enter politics. Is it a desire to climb the social ladder? Is it a sense of civic duty (cough)? Is it a desire for quick cash? During the last election I read a number of quotes from freshman congressoids and my impression was that these people were above all conformists who were uncomfortable questioning the status quo, what is accepted, the givens. They did not impress me as great thinkers rather mostly a bunch of followers. On a whim I went to quite a few of their websites and was struck by how they all looked almost exactly the same, same facial features, same haircuts, same suit, same tie, same mindless toothy smile, and almost all had the same blurb about supporting the troops, conformists all. England still has its monarchy to satisfy the masses need to have something to worship while America, deprived of a monarchy, has substituted the wealthy in place of a monarchy. As far as presidents go I believe Carter had a degree in physics yet that did not ensure a successful presidency, obviously. And what does smart really mean? Are wealthy people smarter than the poor? Is a ruthless person smarter than a benevolent person? Is Bush a smart person? Bush was a complete failure in his personal life which consisted of using other people’s money, via being well connected, to start businesses that all failed mostly followed by being bailed out by pops Bush. Bush is certainly ruthless, but smart?

Jesus Christ, Tom Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela, donescobar.

funny, I read that last comment as

"Jesus Christ! Tom Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela, donescobar.

I read it as Jesus Christ, Tom Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela and donescobar.

The commentors are all assuming that political leaders "run" the world or are the "ruling class." While of course there are people who are born rich and others born poor, and there is still some limited mobility in each direction during a life, I don't think that the political or economic leaders are really making the big decisions.

The scary thing is the world isn't being run. It's a slow accumulation of individual decisions, few of which are made with greater purposes in mind. Some more civilized, educated people's senses of identity transcend the walls of their body and even of their automobile. It's rare to find people who can see a "me" that goes beyond arbitrary national boundaries. Hence the cheering at soccer matches.

I'm betting it's the imbeciles that really mean it.