Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Part 33: 100 Most Influential


Part 33: 100 Most Influential  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following are among the most 100 influential people of all time? (See post for descriptions)

    • Theodore Roosevelt
    • Thomas Edison
    • Thomas Hobbes
    • Thomas Jefferson
    • Thomas Malthus
    • Thomas Paine
    • Tim Berners-Lee
    • Trygve Lie
    • Ulysses S Grant
    • Umar ibn al-Khattab
    • None of the above have been among one of the 100 most influential people.

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 06/21/2022 at 03:35 AM

Recommended Posts

@vcczar @ShortKing @WVProgressive @ConservativeElector2 @mark2 @jnewt @Mark_W @OrangeP47 @Arkansas Progressive @A man from Colorado @SilentLiberty @Rodja @DakotaHale @jvikings1 @themiddlepolitical @Edouard @Vols21 @Timur @Patine @10centjimmy

Here's the next part of the 100 most influential rankings. 


- Please keep discussion on topic. 

- No trolling. 

- No complaining, although constructive criticism is okay. 

- No personal attacks.

- No commenting without voting. 

Theodore Roosevelt Crucial figure in the development of the power of the presidency, which was used as an advocating force for social, domestic policy to improve the quality of the lives of US citizens; inspired the conservation movement, business regulations, labor laws, etc; expanded the US navy into a competitive worldwide power.
Thomas Edison invented the first practical incandescent light bulb and the phonograph.
Thomas Hobbes "Father of Modern Political Theory" for his concept of the Social Contract, the idea that individuals are obligated to surrender some of their freedoms in exchange for protections by their government for the maintenance of social order and stability.
Thomas Jefferson Primary author of the US Declaration of Independence; leader of one of the first two US political parties; co-wrote a resolution that led to secession down the road; 3rd president; presided during the Louisiana Purchase and the International Slave Trade Ban; democratized the presidency by ending European-style pomp and circumstance.
Thomas Malthus Most influential scholar and theorist on population growth
Thomas Paine Activist and pamphleteer who wrote two major pamphlets that each helped spark and expand a revolution: American Revolution and French Revolution
Tim Berners-Lee Invented the World Wide Web
Trygve Lie First Secretary-General of the United Nations, laying the foundation for a lasting international organization
Ulysses S Grant Victorious commanding general of the American Civil War; As President aggressively sought Civil Rights for former slaves in the South; set both the protocol for Federal intervention for Civil Rights, but also arguably inflamed White Southern hostility to the Federal Government and Civil Rights legislation, even to this day.
Umar ibn al-Khattab expanded his Islamic caliphate into an Empire, ensuring the survival and expansion of Islam. Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Iran were converted to Islam, with all but Iran becoming Arabic in culture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna say I'm torn on Malthus, because while he does get talked about a lot, in a lot of ways he appears to be, quite simply, wrong. And in his case, it's not like some of these people where it's a question of "influential in a good way vs influential in a bad way", it's more of a question of he didn't even come up with the right answer so is he really influential in any way?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Where did that meme even start?

I know someone (a big conspiracy theorist who used to work as a cashier at a convenience store located CONVENIENTLY two blocs from where I lived, and regaled me with garbage he got from whackos offline, including Anthony's darling Jordan Petersen) who said he believed a different former U.S. Vice President, Dick Cheney, if not invented, gave the, "authorization," to release and open the Internet, and was shown regretting it in some online video I've never seen, myself, or fully know if it exists, or is in proper context of any sort.

I don't know. I just know people kept saying Al Gore invented the Internet and thought it was funny to be placed here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

I don't know. I just know people kept saying Al Gore invented the Internet and thought it was funny to be placed here. 

The actual quote.    To be fair, I’m sure he meant initiative by introducing legislation, but that’s not as fun. 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ConservativeElector2 @Patine @Vols21

It reminds me of an interview in which Gore Vidal said, "My grandfather invented the state of Oklahoma." As a creative writer, statements like that by Gore and other writers aren't always meant to be taken literally. It resonates more than, "My grandfather was one of the first two US Senators for Oklahoma and served as an advisor for the state's first constitution."

Vidal had a habit of overstating things consistently, but I find him to be one of the most interesting speakers and writers in US history. I also remember watching an old interview just after Reagan beat Carter in 1980. It went something like this....I'm paraphrasing greatly, but you get the gist of how Vidal works:

Interviewer: Reagan won with the support of the people...

Vidal: What people? 1/3 of the people voted for Carter. 1/3 of the people voted for Reagan. 1/3 of the people didn't vote at all...

Interviewer: But Reagan says he has a mandate...

Vidal: Maybe not a mandate. Maybe something more like...a..a boy date. 

Interviewer: But, nevertheless, Reagan's in the White House...

Vidal: I guess that's better than the old actor's home. You know, they put that makeup on him and dye his hair...really doll him up...

Interviewer: Reagan's team has been asked continuously about his hair, and they say he doesn't touch it... 

Vidal: Well, maybe someone else touches it! I myself wouldn't go near it for I fear it would seize me. 

Then I also remember that Vidal was recorded seeing the results of the 2008 elections, and he said something like, "As of today, the Republican Party is as terminated as the Whigs were in 1852," rather emphatically. I remember also thinking George W Bush coupled with the embrace of Sarah Palin and the popularity of Obama was going to lead to the permanent destruction of the GOP as well. One can argue the case if we hadn't an electoral vote. The GOP hasn't won the popular vote since 2004--almost two decades ago! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without Malthus we wouldn't have Thanos.


More seriously, the Malthusian league destigmafied contraception and laid the social groundwork for the birth control pill and legalized abortion.  That's a pretty significant impact.  Keynesian economic theory is also heavily influenced by Malthus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Patine said:

But it's interesting to consider and ponder what the political scheme would look like if there were neither an Electoral College NOR a locked, stacking-the-deck-against-all-opposition, firmly entrenched incumbent, Microsoft-Apple two-party-system (which seems to have been, in large part, initially enabled to become and remain such because of the Electoral College).

I think an end of duopoly in the US would probably only create an unofficial duopoly in the US. The conservative parties would realize first that by being more cohesive around a single party would give them an advantage in every election. They'll want to win rather than "be right." The more liberal parties would like stick to their guns, weaking the anti-conservative parties. Perhaps it would eventually iron out into something. I think what would be better is if political parties didn't exist. Endorsements weren't allowed. Big money was out of politics. Lobbyists were out. Whatever it takes to make it seem more like it is individual, independent politicians running for every office. Naturally, to contrive that would be too difficult to be possible. In short, I think in the US, duopoly and non-duopoly would have their own issues. I think the best path is: 

1. Abolish the electoral college. 

2. Have ranked-choice voting. 

3. Require 50.1% of the vote for a win. 

4. Unless a candidate gets 60% of the vote, the 2nd place finisher gets to name one cabinet member, the new president must accepts one platform plank from the opposing party as their own, and the 2nd place finisher has access to the White House as a voice of the leading opposition. Basically, anything to prevent a winner-takes-all situation. 

I think conservatives would probably still unify more centrally on a candidate to aim to hit that 50.1% mark on the first ballot. I dislike the Republican Party, but I'll admit that they often do what it takes to win by playing to the system rather than trying to win the argument. Democrats prioritize winning the argument or doing "what's right" over winning, often because doing the latter means forgoing some of the former. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Patine said:

Although I didn't select Malthus, specifically, I must say that that coming up with the wrong theory, and having very large numbers of people thinking in that way, whether it's right or wrong, to the point of influencing important decisions or events, if influence, nonetheless. Ptolemy is a good example of this I did vote for. Being wrong, even dead wrong, does not necessarily preclude being influential, even potentially very influential, depending on how many people catch on to, and carry on, your mistaken presumptions, and how much damage they do. It's part of the Lemming Theory.

I feel as if in the other cases later works built more from the people who were wrong, but in Malthus case it isn't the case, so to speak, is the distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

However, the two wings of the American spectrum are not as cohesive as they were in the 80's and 90', and may only be being held together by the even remote possibility of winning. For instance, the successors to the Neocons (Graham and Liz Cheney), the Big Business faction (Romney and Walker), the Social Conservatives (Cruz and Rick Scott), the Libertarians (Paul and Lee), and the rabid Ultra-Nationalists (Trump and gang) have little in common, and not necessarily cozy feelings, with each other except an arbitrary party label and the same nomination slot from their Primaries by long-standing tradition and the necessities of the EC. They're held together like the proverbial Celtic army - even Boehner said such, retrospectively - and remaining under one leadership if not necessary might be more of a dubious ideal than you assume. Likewise, on the left-wing of the American, the Establishment Liberals (Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, and Obama), the more radical Progressives (Harris, AoC, and other, mostly newer elected figures, comparatively), and the Social Democrats (Sanders, Warren, etc.) are not seeing eye-to-eye either, and might not willingly united under a coalition of convenience if not required by the electoral system. Also, outsider figures (at least certain ones - I wouldn't hold my breath for Blitzerian or the Naked Cowboy) may well get more ability to get out a message and get traction if they weren't damned from the start by the stigmatic labels, "Third Party," or, "Independent."

You could make the argument that they were less cohesive in the 80s and 90s, which moderates were more common and we had more overlap. In fact, you still has conservative Southern Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans. Since Gingrich, there's a sharp divide and the resorting of the parties from parties into Left-Right ideological parties has become complete after a 30 to 40 year resortment. This can be shown by the fact that even Liz Cheney voted with Trump 97% of the time. Romney, Graham, Walker, Cruz, Scott, Paul, and Lee also voted with Trump 90% of the time or more. Similarly, AOC, Sanders, and Warren vote with Biden about 90% of the time or more. According FiveThirtyEight, Manchin and Sinema support Biden 95% of the time. Both Sanders and AOC support Biden about 93% of the time. All my other figures are also from FiveThirtyEight. There only seems like there's massive inter-party divisions because that's what the media focuses on. Objection to Trump by the GOP has more to do about Trump personally. If he were a respectful person, you wouldn't have Never Trump Republicans. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...