Archie Brown attempts to differentiate among different degrees and characteristics of leadership as well as tease out the leaders that happened to be at the right place at the right time with those that were truly impactful.
The take on US presidents is interesting. Johnson was a strong leader. He cajoled and manipulated others to get his policies through. He used his strength as a senator and president to advocate for himself. He knew he had little chance of getting elected as a southerner, so willingly signed up to be vice president. He was then able to get re-elected on his own. He pushed through many civil rights and welfare programs as part of his great society. His strengths and obstinance also extended the Vietnam War (and led to his downfall.)
Both Reagan and Clinton were seen as sociable leaders that did little special other than serve while things were happening. Reagan was president during the final phase of the cold war as the USSR was about to die. Clinton served during a period of a booming economy in the late 1990s. The author acknowledges that they related well to the people. However, he posits that Reagan did very little to help bring about the fall of the USSR. He just happened to be there when it happened. (Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher in England and Gorbachev in the USSR were seen as more important, strong rulers. ) As for Clinton was gifted a great economy, yet failed to make many lasting changes.
The book has some interesting ideas, though comes across more as an opinion piece than a scholarly work. There are some conclusions of characteristics drawn, but it feels more like "I know a strong leader when I see one."
No comments:
Post a Comment