Churchill and His Money, or Lack of It
harrowell.org.uk
harrowell.org.uk
See also: Obama's Dreams From My Father, The Audacity of Hope. Trump's Crippled America. Hitler's Mein Kampf (the copyright on that is expiring very soon). Mao Zedong's "Little Red Book".
In Ender's Game (fiction, but compelling), Ender's siblings go on to become incredibly influential because of their writings. And it's also why things like propaganda is so powerful, why we have phrases like "the pen is mightier than the sword", books like Farenheit 451, and even, if you think about it, the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.
Books are powerful things, and people who seek power are typically associated with them one way or another.
I think it's interesting to read the writings of an influential person, and sometimes it is mandatory to read them even if it's not that interesting, but I doubt that these people mainly become influential through their writing (at least the effect seems much smaller than the reverse - books becoming widely read because of the author's influence on world events.) It certainly works in both directions, I just think one is much stronger than the other.
The pen and the sword... well, persuasion is mightier than an individual's brute force because you can mobilize the force of others through persuasion. But is "pen" the right metaphor for persuasion in a world where both dictators and democratically elected leaders rely on the support of huge groups of people, many of whom rarely read, have poor reading comprehension (don't we all? especially when reading what we disagree with?), and are most easily swayed by simple ideas boiling down to "the source of your troubles whom you should rob to improve your life is X"? If the world is run a by a literate few born into a powerful minority, then perhaps a pen might be more powerful.
As to religious texts... I think they're kinda different in that say Lenin's writing could rival the popularity of religious texts for a while, at a time when printing was very cheap, but it no longer can. Contrast that to religious texts which remained popular for hundreds and thousands of years at a time when reproducing texts was very expensive. And there was never a lack of either tyrants or statesmen with popular support during those years, moreover, quite a few of those tyrants were worshiped as gods, and both tyrants and elected politicians wrote texts. None of these texts are remotely as widely read as religious texts.
So whatever the cause, the handful of popular prophets are vastly more popular than any of history's politicians, and are way better at maintaining their influence from their graves.
I still do think that the "pen" is a lot more powerful than people tend to give it credit for, just that its influence tends to operate over a long timeframe. I suppose in today's context, the "pen" = your ability to engage with people. In this sense, Donald Trump is wielding his "pen" terrifyingly well.
You're totally right as well, of course, that popular religious texts will be more popular and more powerful than any politician's. These texts are woven into people's lives much more intimately.
Your last sentiment is interesting, though. I generally feel that while the various prophets' work (as interpreted and re-interpreted by others, mostly) is incredibly popular, their "influence" is sorta... corrupted? Exploited? I"m reminded of a quote often attributed to Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Not sure if he actually said that, but you get the idea. (Applies to practically all major organized religions, I don't mean to single out Christianity.)
In the case of both Kennedy and Obama the book was used in combination with great oratory skill to introduce the candidate to the people: You hear an amazing speech by the candidate and want to learn more. You find they have written a book and decide to read it. The book gives you a feeling of intimacy with the candidate which turns you into a supporter.
Kim Kardashian could string a few sentences together, and it would be a best seller.
I am throughly shocked at what people read. I just don't get it.
(One day I will read Obama's first book. Why--because I believe he will go down in history as one of our better presidents.)
I guess it depends on your metric of choice: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/oct/01/fac...
Remember, Churchill was a member of the hereditary aristocracy with inherited wealth, which he seems to have spent or misinvented to a great extent - that's the point of the book being reviewed here. That was a big key to power.
The lone exception being that excitable German with the Charlie Chaplin moustache...
Being in prison also accomplishes that goal.
Ideally you should be in prison for political reasons, because most other crimes may be detrimental to improving social status in the future.
And countries that put you in prison for political reasons have no overlap with countries that have comfortable prisons that encourage and nurture self-improvement, contemplation and creative pursuits.
Being jailed by your political opponents, whatever the reason, is generally unlikely to hurt your social status if you do get to power eventually, since even non-political charges can be dismissed as politically motivated.
What are the best ways to get and leverage so much credit intelligently, without having such initial wealth and status?
Are there institutions that offer credit based on some measure of g/educational attainment/"future earnings potential"?
If you build a startup that has users who love you, you can raise money from investors, get press attention, etc. Caveat being that it's a really, really hard thing to do.