In a previous article, I asked why Senator Clinton, Senator Obama or Senator McCain is certain to become the next President of the United States. I questioned whether all of the great leaders of the past had disappeared not to be replaced, and if so why. This is an attempt to pursue that question further. Up front, I must admit that I don't know whether the question can be answered.
During a recent press moment, former President Clinton purportedly said, ". . . history doesn't amount to a hill of beans. All that matters is the future.” I hope that he was either joking or misquoted, because he couldn't possibly have meant that seriously. History is the key to the present and, thus, to how we create the future.
According to legend, there was a “great leader,” Cincinnatus. Having been driven into exile, he worked his own small farm, plowing his own fields. In 457 BC, Rome was at war and doing poorly. The Senate nominated Cincinnatus dictator, for a six month term, to deal with the problem. He assented and led the infantry while another led the cavalry. The enemy surrendered, whereupon Cincinnatus disbanded his army, resigned his dictatorship and returned to his plow, a mere sixteen days after he had been made dictator. He came out of retirement again in 439 BC to put down another revolt. After the war, Cincinnatus resumed where he had left off, working at his farm.
Much of the above may be apocryphal, as is much recorded as history. 457 BC was a long time ago and Rome was a small country. Cincinnatus didn't have to deal with a far distant Pentagon, or appear before Senatorial committees. Nevertheless, it is a starting point in looking for the defining characteristics of a truly good national leader. No modern candidates eschew power; all seek it mightily, and spend months if not years as well as many millions of dollars in its pursuit. When they achieve it, they rarely go away. President Truman was a rara avis.
Two Who Strove Mightily for Power
President Theodore Roosevelt (“TR”) sought vigorously – as he sought everything else he wanted — the power of the presidency. He suffered greatly from childhood asthma and strove to prove himself through willpower and physical activity. According to David McCullough,a prolific writer of history and biography, the popular notion that he cured his asthma that way is fallacious. Major relief came “when he went to Harvard, when he left home and was on his own in ways he had never been.” Nevertheless, will power and physical activity were important parts of his public as well as his private persona.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - troll
concentration camps and scorched earth in the Philippines...the butchery that was trench warfare...nuclear destruction
you chose three winners - save us from such leaders
in fact...save us from leaders altogether
2 - Dan Miller
Troll,
save us from leaders altogether
Would that I could, except that would lead to anarchy and then we probably wouldn't have the internet invented, as we all know, by one of the greatest leaders of this century. Without that, how could we possibly engage in civilized, rational discussion?
Dan
3 - troll
Dan...I concluded awhile back that nothing is going to 'work' without a rebirth of wonder in the human spirit
once Well's comet passes even constructive anarchy will be possible
4 - Arch Conservative
"Dan...I concluded awhile back that nothing is going to 'work' without a rebirth of wonder in the human spirit"
I guess you will just have to settle for "works good enough" then.
5 - Condor
There are plenty of great leaders in society, they choose to stay of politics. And, there are plenty of quotes about politicians which will make my point.
What's all the fighting about in politics? I don't want a bunch of backstabbing hypocrites up in legislature... I want team work. Leaders lead teams and I've been on teams enough to know that the mess up on capitol hill (state or federal) lost, or never had any background in team concepts. It's pretty clear.
6 - Dan Miller
Troll,
I agree, to a limited extent, that nothing is going to 'work' without a rebirth of wonder in the human spirit.
Rebirth suggests that such wonder once existed on a widespread basis but no longer does. I submit that this thesis is fallacious and that the word birth is a better choice.
There have long been people blessed with passionate curiosity, excitement, and the sheer joy of discovery coupled with a resilient sense of humor: Voltaire, Russell, Hawkins, Einstein, Mozart, and a whole bunch more. TR had those qualities as well, and that is one of the reasons why I consider him to have been a great leader. Whatever he may have done, and some of it was counterproductive, he brought these qualities to the pursuit. Say what you will, he was not a plodder, nor was his persona artificial. He was not the creation of speech writers, makeup artists, and canned answers to questions asked by "reporters" at so called debates.
Some day, perhaps, these characteristics may become so widespread as to be normal human characteristics; I consider myself an optimist, but don't see much hope for it anytime soon.
Tangentially, perhaps, have you ever heard an actual debate? I consider the media circuses in which our candidates "debate" to have little more to do with actual debates than with mud wrestling or the more popular reality TV shows.
Typically, in a debate, the specific topic is agreed upon in advance, and there are no questions from reporters: "Resolved that this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country," or "Resolved that Life begins at Puberty," for example. The debaters then try to persuade the audience, and the judges, of the superiority of their respective positions. Such debates are often enlightening, and the debaters have to articulate actual bases for their support of or opposition to the specific resolution. I wish that we could experience at least one such actual debate between the two candidates for the November election. I don't think we will, however.
Dan
7 - Ruvy
Dan,
I read this article; you appear to bemoan two things - the lack of real leaders, and the lack of a moral society that can produce such leaders.
It should not be forgotten (it too easily is) that those who arise to lead a society are reflective of it in many ways. A society lacking moral fiber will produce leaders deficient in moral fiber.
Unfortunately, the country I no longer call my own is such a country; and even more to the tragedy, the nation I call my own now is also such a country. So, yes, I'm throwing stones from my glass house. But unlike many, I will not make excuses for the sad excuses of Jews, let alone human beings, who run the show in Israel. The "power-holders" in Israel - I'll not dirty the word "leader" by attempting to include these scum in that category - deserve the same fate as Benito Mussolini got; they deserve to be hung from butcher hooks, be they dead or alive.
If you look at how Americans shake out on issues, you see that they tend to believe in liberty - personal liberty - as opposed to moral rectitude. And that is the big problem.
I enjoyed your article; as usual, it was well written and thoughtful. But I'm being called to lunch by my wife, so I got to get going.
8 - Dan Miller
Ruvy,
Thanks. I agree totally that leaders are reflective of the society from which they spring. Even worse, however, is that through their "leadership" they exacerbate the societal flaws which created them.
I do have a modest proposal, but somehow I don't think it will be adopted.
I don't know enough about the situation in Israel to comment on it intelligently, and so I won't try.
As to hanging the folks in question from butcher hooks, dead or alive, I would rather close them in small rooms and force them to listen, fifteen hours per day, to their own words repeated incessantly.
While perhaps less humane, the irony is appealing. When you have a chance, listen to G&S' Mikado and enjoy the part about "a more humane Mikado never did in Japan exist . . . .
Dan
9 - Ruvy
That was a good, albeit late lunch. During Passover, you learn to make sure to drink water or pay painful consequences later. Matza binds far better than rice. So here I am, sitting with a nice tall glass of water besides me.
A number of you have referred to "a rebirth of wonder in the human spirit".
"Wonder" is a synonym for "awe". People tend to lose their awe of nature, for example, when someone in a lab coat produces a mundane reason for a natural event.
Let's take lightning or a rainbow for example. upon seeing a rainbow, an observant Jew is expected to recite a blessing which indicates his awe at the event. The same is true upon seeing lightning or hearing thunder.
This doesn't mean that this same fellow has a medieval attitude towards either and that he shrouds himself in ignorance of basic physics like some English peasant from the 1400's. He can be fully aware that the rainbow is the refraction of light in the atmosphere under certain conditions, and that the thunder and lightning are the result of electrical storms in the atmosphere.
The underlying point of the blessing is to remind the person reciting it NOT to lose his/her sense of awe and wonder of the universe, even if they are post-docs in cosmology or meteorology.
These concepts apply to justice as well and a sense of awe and wonder can remind a person that moral rectitude is a governor on personal liberty. My generation, the baby boomers, embraced personal liberty in America - and largely threw out moral rectitude as being old-fashioned and irrelevant. Moral rectitude was replaced with a sense of guilt leading to a sense of entitlement. A terrible price is being paid for this now; part of which is the dearth of real leaders in the United States.
10 - troll
Dan - what a concept...you mean like you say: "greatness is a desirable trait" and then I say: "greatness is an undesirable trait" and then we talk about definitions for a while and eventually agree that greatness is one of those 'maybe good - maybe bad' kinds of things...and the audience responds politely while secretly disappointed
and on the wonder thing - just about every person I know exhibits those defining characteristics that you listed at one time or another - so it may well be that unborn wonder isn't the problem
back to the drawing board...another graffito bites the dust
...merry passover Ruvy
11 - Baronius
There's a big paradox with leadership. A leader has to be independent, out on his own. He also has to be followed. We talk about being "ahead of the curve", as if there's only one possibility for the future, and the leader is the one who sees it first. That's false. There are any number of possible futures, and a leader is someone who can steer people toward the best one.
The Kennedys used to give out "Profiles in Courage" awards every year. They went to politicians who defied the people's wishes. Therein lies the problem. I can't picture the Kennedys giving AG Ashcroft an award, but I think he was perfect: he did what was best for the country, within the rules of his job (as far as I know), even though he became unpopular for it. I'd consider him a hero, but no one followed him, so was he a leader?
I'm rambling here.
There's got to be a connection between the increase in polling data and the decline in leadership. It's partly the leaders' fault. They know what is popular, at a level of detail that no prior generation of national leaders could, and they're afraid to step outside the safety of popular opinion. On the other hand, the population is to be blamed for going along with the crowd. We try so hard to support popular candidates, to pick the guy who's going to win. We're embarrassed to have our own opinions. Maybe we've broken out of that thinking this election cycle, though.
Anyway, Dan, I hope you're in the mood for random musings. Oh - one other thing, about what Ruvy said. I think that polls and perceived popularity are more damaging at a time when we don't have great moral grounding. A guy like Kerry would have been laughed off the public stage in a prior generation.
12 - Dan Miller
Baronious,
I think I pretty much understand what you are saying, and it is a very difficult topic with which to deal without rambling a bit. Please permit me to ramble.
I agree that for a leader to lead he needs followers; he also has to pay attention to his followers, or he won't have them for very long. He also needs to understand that not all of his followers will follow him constantly. It also helps to come along at the right time. History seems to treat those who arrived on the scene when they were needed better than it does those who arrived at an inauspicious time.
The attribute of humility, extraordinarily rare in politicians, seems to me to be the most important. Humility leads to an understanding that a leader can take positions which are unpopular with his followers, at least occasionally, and perhaps lead them in the process. During his last term in office, President Truman did that, and most likely didn't much care that his popularity rating was down at around twenty-eight percent when he left office.
Truman fired General MacArthur, a very popular general, because MacArthur seemed to have forgot who was the commander in chief, and because MacArthur had become so entranced with his own military genius and his own understanding of the Asian mind that he thought he could ignore with impunity intelligence to the effect that the Chinese were going to come into the battle in Korea in incredible numbers and with incredible strength not long after MacArthur's truly ingenious Inchon invasion. Any intelligence inconsistent with his views was, by definition, wrong.
During WWII, General MacArthur was a great leader, even though those same characteristics were then in evidence as well. During the Korean Conflict, there was concern that MacArthur might be nominated for and elected to the Presidency by acclimation. His unconquerable lack of humility would have made him a very bad president, despite his great popularity. General Eisenhower, referred to by MacArthur as the best clerk he ever had, was probably a far better president than MacArthur could ever have been. Serving under General MacArthur may have been a very humbling experience. President Eisenhower had at least a modicum of humility. So did President Reagan.
Changing tack a bit, we now have daily public opinion polls and focus groups of dubious validity. They shape as well as measure public opinion, and politicians rely on them far more than they should. Generally, the results of the polls are published, but only infrequently are the questions which produced those results. Anyone who ever took Statistics 101 knows that the results of a poll are quite dependent upon the questions asked. “Do you think that the horrific death toll in Iraq should continue unabated and indefinitely?” is likely to produce a very different result from “Do you want the U.S. to lose the war against terror?”
I rather wish that there were fewer opinion polls, and that the childlike reliance placed upon them would diminish.
I also wish that there were illuminating debates in the old fashioned sense of the word, rather than mud wrestling contests with the candidates egged on to wrestle over and spin trivia by “reporters” primarily intent upon self-glorification. Although we don't have television, and rely upon the internet for news, that seems to me to be the way things are. I wish I were wrong, but am afraid that I am not.
Dan
13 - Baronius
Dan, I agree with you about debates, to an extent. We don't need Debate Club rules to improve them, but we do need to improve them.
How about giving each candidate a half an hour (in ten minute blocks) to discuss his economic policy and rebut the other guy's. Or how about the old Evans and Novak routine of reasking a question if the interviewee doesn't answer it the first time. We could also let the candidates question each other.
One lesson I hope we've learned is that our current debate format can't handle more than four or five people.
Subject change - on another board, I was writing about humility, which I see lacking among Democratic higher-ups on the subject of intelligence. We have lousy proxies for humility these days. Like appearing on late-night TV shows that you don't take yourself seriously...or it shows that you'll go on TV any time, day or night, as long as someone is going to pay attention to you.
14 - Dan Miller
Baronious,
Sorry, but I do think that something approaching debate club rules would really help.
First of all, there would be one issue upon which to focus (finding an important issue on which Senators Clinton and Obama disagree sufficiently for a debate might be difficult, but there must be one out there somewhere). That issue would be impossible to dodge, and the candidates would have to address it. Such a debate would force a substantive discussion. There would be no irrelevant pandering or attacks by reporters, at least during the debate.
Not only that, but real debates can be interesting and fun. I recall such a debate back in 1959 or 1960, when the Yale Political Union was considering whether to invite Gus Hall, then president of the U.S. Communist Party, to address the Union. A debate was held, and Bill Buckley keynoted it. He was marvelous, and set the tone for the debaters by defining the meaning of the resolution set for debate.
Perhaps a debate between Senators Clinton and Obama, keynoted by God only knows who, would produce a truly fruitful exchange. What the hell. It would be a useful experiment and would, in any event, show which if either of them has ideas beyond bumper sticker slogans and ten second sound bites. It would also keep it from being a contest as to which could best deflect often cutely phrased but stupid questions from glory seeking "reporters."
We agree on humility and that participating in a pie throwing contest or a truth or consequences show has nothing to do with anything.
We also agree on the need for humility in the intelligence community. First, there are too many intelligence agencies, each with its own prestige to advance and turf to protect. These things are hardly conducive to humility. At least in the past (and I have no way of knowing what is going on now, since it is all pretty secret stuff), The FBI under Hoover and the agencies of various names which ultimately became the CIA under Wild Bill Donovan, seemed at times to be more at war with each other than with the Germans. Neither Hoover nor Donovan was notable for his humility, and neither was remarkable for considering seriously the views of underlings with different views.
There is, of course, an almost uncontrollable urge to tell the boss what he wants to hear, whether the boss is the President, the head of an intelligence agency, a lower ranking boss.
I wish I could present some solutions, but if there is one, I don't know what it is.
Dan
15 - Dan Miller
Baronius-- I just noticed that I typed your name incorrectly. I apologize.
Dan
16 - Dr Dreadful
Ithought maybe you were implying that he was acting like a baron - i.e. baroniously!
;-)
17 - Dan Miller
Doc,
No, I was sleep deprived and was, you know, dodging sniper fire and my fingers got ahead of my brain. I misspoke, like I mean, you know, I mistyped. Hey, Bill -- I need some help with this.
Why don't you just go away and let me waffle; I mean, eat my waffle. My blood sugar is probably way low and the maple syrup will help. I just can't help things these days. But I will never actually lie to you.
Dan
18 - Dr Dreadful
Sure, Dan.
Just tell me you were for Baronius before you were against him and we'll call it quits.
19 - Dan Miller
Oh heck, Doc. What the hell.
Actually, I was against him before I was for him, but when I was against him I was very stressed out, what with getting ready for, you know, like, I mean, three AM phone calls and deciding which color pant suit to wear and, you know, how to make Bill shut up or do something and I just didn't realize that I had ever said I was against him or anything. It was all the malicious press putting words in my mouth, you know, I mean they hate me and it's all so unfair. But I want to talk about the issues.
Dan
20 - Dr Dreadful
Nice try, Dan. But I've decided now you have to disown him. Him, specifically. Just disowning his views isn't going to cut it. In fact we won't be happy until you drag him out into the middle of Millennium Park, tie him to a stake and personally command the firing squad. Actually, even that won't be good enough. You'll need to hang, draw and quarter him with your own bare hands. Of course, once you've complied with all of that, we'll turn around and ask the American people if they really want as their President a man who'd do that to his good friend... Whoops, sorry - am I projecting?
21 - Dan Miller
Very good question, Doc.
Just let me say that I have always been against violence. You know, I opposed the war in Iraq, and will always be against violence I mean unless we are talking about a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran which is, you know, different.
I am also opposed to guns, except in Pennsylvania where standards may be different. Even in the White House, I never fired a gun at anyone. I hope that's true, I mean is believed.
Enough of this. Let's focus on the ISSUES.
cf my response #8 to Ruvy.
Dan
22 - Baronius
"finding an important issue on which Senators Clinton and Obama disagree sufficiently for a debate might be difficult"
That raises some interesting questions. Do you think they don't disagree on many things, or have they just not been specific enough? I'd love to see a debate between Clinton and Obama on immigration and trade. But they'd never agree to it, because they'd have to make a lot of specific, unpopular statements.
If they do agree on most things, maybe a debate isn't necessary. It's not about positions, it's about character and experience. I've found the best way to learn about someone's true character is to make a comment about how hot their sister is. It works differently on men and women, but it always provides insight.
We do agree about the power of real debates. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't have them before the general election. Two sides with very different agendas.
We don't agree about intelligence agencies, though. I worded my earlier comment poorly: I meant that leading Dems boast about their brain capacities. I've got nothing but sympathy for the intelligence agencies. We pay them to guess what people are hiding, then get upset if they guess wrong. Yeesh.
23 - Baronius
Dan, you don't have to distance yourself from me. I was only speaking my mind. I think that Dr. Dreadful is a clean man, but he is also a monster. God Damn Doctor Dreadful!
24 - Clavos
Re comments #s 16-21:
Very clever and entertaining.
Props to both of you...
25 - Dan Miller
Baronius,
Ok. I will neither distance myself nor disown you. I might even state that I agree with you, lots of the time. I could probably cite examples; but that might be dangerous because should I change my mind, how could I weasel out?
As to Doc being a monster, well, I don't really know that he is a monster.
You say, Do you think [Senators Clinton and Obama] . . . don't disagree on many things, or have they just not been specific enough?
Lack of specificity has been pretty high, and the tactic as I have observed it from a distance has been for each to restate the other's position and then disagree with the restatement. That wouldn't wash very well in an actual debate.
I'd love to see a debate between Clinton and Obama on immigration and trade.
Unless I've missed something really important, they don't seem to disagree much with each other, just with themselves depending on when and where they are speaking. NAFTA is, of course, a prime example. Senator Clinton was for that when she was First Lady, completely against free trade when speaking in Pennsylvania (most recently) but only partially against it with Panama in November because one of the higher ups in the Panamanian Assembly is wanted for murder in the U.S.
She stated, "as long as the head of Panama's National Assembly is a fugitive from justice in America, I cannot support that agreement." And, of course, due to alleged persecution of labor unionists in Colombia, of whom there are very few and of whom there is no significant "persecution," she opposed that agreement as well because her labor union supporters in the U.S. want to make a big deal of it. Naturally(?), there can be no free trade agreement with Panama or Colombia until there are such agreements with both. Somehow, methinks her reason stated in November for opposing the Panama agreement, and her reasons for opposing the agreement with Colombia, have very little to do with the merits of free trade or with her recent statements in Pennsylvania.
But they'd never agree to it, because they'd have to make a lot of specific, unpopular statements. Amen. That's the problem with, and the benefit of, a real debate and that's exactly why there won't be one.
As to intelligence, I'm sorry I misread what you wrote. Yeah, they do seem to tell us how clever they are, Senator Clinton -- the smartest woman in the world -- is perhaps the worst offender along with her surrogates.
Obviously, the multiple and various intelligece agencies (an oxymoron?) do get trashed a bit too much, but they aren't paid to guess; they are paid to do more than that, and humans on the ground, even bad guys paid for information, are often the best sources.
I've found the best way to learn about someone's true character is to make a comment about how hot their sister is. . . Amen. The problem is, we've already had more than enough of that to make the decision.
Dan
PS to Doc: I hereby promise to state that I know that you aren't really a monster if you will tidy up the link; somehow, I couldn't get rid of the line break after "she stated."
Thanks, Doc.
[Duly tidied. You're welcome, Dan.
Doc]