By Rob Reynolds, Al Jazeera's senior Washington correspondent
Lincoln is still greatly revered as one of the US's greatest presidents [GALLO/GETTY]
The US presidential hopefuls are battling over who would be a better leader in a time of crisis.
The verbal sparring was sparked by Barack Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, who appeared to suggest that, if elected, Obama would face some sort of international crisis in his first year in office as US adversaries abroad sought ways to "test" the new president.
John McCain, Obama's Republican rival, has jumped on this line of reasoning, telling rallies that he has already been tested.
He cited his military experience in the 1960s and 1970s (no surprise there) as proof that he has "what it takes".Obama fired back that McCain flunked the leadershp test more recently by showing "willful ignorance and outdated ideology" in response to the US and global financial crisis.
'Indefinable' quality
In depth
Leadership is an indefinable quality.
Some presidents had it, others did not.
It is a combination of personal charisma, energy, temperament, outook, work habits, and other factors: No-one can readily predict how that combination comes together in a particular person facing a particular set of circumstances.
The man who was by any measure one of the greatest presidents was, upon entering office, woefully untested.
Abraham Lincoln had served just one term in the US congress and had had a less-than-successful career as a legislator in the state of Illinois.
He had served in the military for only a few months during the Black Hawk War, a farcical yet tragic episode in the long history of the US dispossession of Native American peoples.
Furthermore, Lincoln had what we would consider today a "troubling" psychological profile.
He was subject to attacks of depression throughout his life, a sadness so deep and profound that all who met him remarked upon the mournful expression in his eyes.
Lincoln himself was open about his mental misery in his letters and in conversations wth friends.
In modern times a poitician with a history of chronic depression would be lucky to win an election to the city council, let alone the White House.
In focus
In-depth coverage of the US presidential electionYet Lincoln proved not only to be an inspirational leader but a practical politician and military tactician.
His determination not to allow the southern states to shatter the union and his lifelong fight against slavery brought him to greatness.
Franklin Roosevelt was another president who many people considered a lightweight before taking office.
He had been the governor of New York for barely one term, and had served as assistant secretary of the navy, but had no military experience.
For most of his adult life, Roosevelt was unable to use his legs as a result of a polio infection.
Again, in today's political climate, a person so severely handicapped would likely never be seriously considered for the nation's highest office.
Yet Roosevelt proved to be a great leader.
His ringing phrase "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" roused the country from the paralysis of the Great Depression.
His decisions helped win the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Notable failures
James Buchanan: Experienced politician,terrible president [GALLO/GETTY]On the other hand, highly qualified, apparently distiguished politicans have proved to be dreadful leaders.
James Buchanan had an illustrious background - he fought in the War of 1812, became a member of the US house of representatives, served several terms as a senator, was ambassador to Britain and later secretary of state.
Perhaps no president had such a depth of experience in government as he did.
Yet Buchanan, who was Lincoln's immediate predecessor in the White House, utterly failed as a leader.
As the southern states began, one by one, to secede from the Union in 1860 and '61, Buchanan, paralysed by indecision, did nothing to prepare for war or stop the dissolution of the country.
He has been widely considered by historians to be the worst president in US history (although many historians living today would like to nominate George Bush for that position).
Similarly, Herbert Hoover, the president who Roosevelt replaced, was one of the best-qualified men of his time and was considered almost to be an economic genius by many of his contemporaries.
Hoover was an engineer and technocrat, had put together a much-admired relief plan for war-ravaged Europe in 1917 that saved perhaps millions of lives, and he was a successful cabinet secretary in charge of economic affairs during the boom years of the 1920s.
But when the Depression hit, Hoover could not muster any inspirational qualities within himself to rally the nation.
His mantra of "prosperity is just around the corner" was a sham, and the millions of jobless Americans who were suffering knew it. It took Roosevelt's will and optimism to pull the US back together in the midst of the worst of hard times.
Final deciders
Hopefully US voters will exercise theirjudgement come election day [AFP]Successful leader-presidents seem have one essential quality in common: A combination of steady purpose and flexibility with regards to achieving it.
Lincoln would not budge from his goal of saving the union and destroying slavery, but he was open to new ideas about how to do so, and continually changed commanding generals until he found the ones who could do the job.
He succeeded.
Roosevelt knew his job was to lift the country out of the depths of the depression, and he was willing to innovate in any number of ways to do so, with untried programmes and policies that flew in the face of economic orthodoxy.
He also succeeded.
None of us know whether the next president - be he Obama or McCain - will have the ineffable quality of leadership.
But we can judge from what we have seen of them as they fought for their parties' nominations, in the debates and in the conduct of their campaigns so far.
The voters will be the final "deciders", as George Bush might say.
Let's hope they follow the instincts that led their forebears to choose leaders such as Lincoln and Roosevelt - and not the flawed judgement that put Buchanan and Hoover in the White House.
Source:
Al Jazeera
http://samotalis.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment