The perceived
greatness of any political leader has more to do with the challenges faced by
the leader than with any of his or her inherent skills and abilities.
Perception is everything in politics. Politicians are
painfully aware that their education, record, and proven abilities, can have
little to do with how they are perceived by the public. Instead, they are judged by how they
deal with conflicts, and by the ultimate result of those conflicts.
President Abraham Lincoln would not be considered one of the
greatest presidents, if not the greatest president, if the Civil War had not
occurred. His skills and abilities
before the war are not well known, except to historians, but he is celebrated
for being president during a terrible conflict that ended in victory for the
Union. He is tremendously admired for this despite his error in judgement
concerning General McClellan; an error which cost the North a victory that
could have ended the war early and saved thousands of lives. President Lincoln is considered by many
have been an even greater leader than President Thomas Jefferson, a man who
arguably had more education, knowledge, worldliness, and ingenuity.
Victory in a conflict is also optimal if a politician is
going to be considered great. If the Allied Forces had lost WWII, Prime
Minister Winston Churchill would not have been so highly esteemed. A victory in the war in Vietnam would
have made the public view President Lyndon Johnson more favorably, as would
have a victory in the Korean War for President Harry Truman. President Truman is rarely given credit
for preventing a third world war.
The public judges politicians depending on the difficulties
they face while in office. If those politicians succeed in overcoming challenges,
the public holds them in high regards, however, if they are perceived to fail,
they are not viewed as great leaders. Rarely is a politician considered great
even if he or she has incredible aptitude and experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment