Reagan, Thatcher, Gorbachev, Machiavelli... Where are they now?

Poor Nicolo Machiavelli!  He really gets a bad rap, doesn’t he?  I mean, just because the well-worn phrase “the end justifies the means” can be traced to his masterwork, The Prince, that doesn’t mean he was a bad guy, does it?  But, that’s the way he’s perceived.  Even people who don’t know what he has written or who he is know that a “Machiavellian scheme” is a bad thing.

More high-minded people point to how he turned the concept of a virtuous society on its head.  The ancient Greek philosophers – Aristotle and Socrates – defined a virtuous society as the result of the good works of its citizens.  To their way of thinking, the means were more important than the end.  Old Nick turned that concept of virtue on its head.  To him, virtue was about being crafty, astute or sly.  It referred to the ability of a leader to deal with whatever comes their way – to be decisive and get results.

The Prince was a handbook for the heirs to the Medici fortune not a blueprint for utopia.   The Greeks were idealists.  Machiavelli was a pragmatist.

Most often this blog turns on “issues” and policies.  I am an issues-oriented guy and those who take the time to read this fit the same mold.  We decry the misguided media and wonder aloud why the mass of voters doesn’t seem to care about the issues.  We parse the words of political candidates as if they will actually do (or have a chance to do) what they promise in campaigns.  Naïve idealists that we are, we actually think that policy matters more than politics and that what politicians say, they should do.

Alas, most political leaders have no opportunity to pursue the policies on which they campaign.  Some have no illusions.  They campaign to get elected.  Others may be sincere but their best intentions are overcome by events.  The administrations of LBJ and the much-maligned Jimmy Carter were not defined by their political campaigns.  They were defined by what the world handed them, the Vietnam War and the Iranian hostage crisis, respectively.

What was handed Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher was Mikhail Gorbachev.  What was interesting is that Gorby brought them an opportunity to pursue ideas in which they believed (unlike the duo mentioned above).

More than any world leader in the 80’s, Gorbachev determined how the 20^th Century would draw to a close.  His policies of “perestroika” (restructuring)and “glasnost” (openness) led to freely contested elections and liberalization of the economy.  He foresaw the economic collapse of the Soviet model and hastened it.  The Soviet Union may not have gone so quietly had it not been for Gorbachev, a pragmatist who saw that he didn’t have the resources to continue the Cold War.  Would we think of Reagan and Thatcher in the same way had the Soviet Union dragged on for another decade or two?  How about Helmut Kohl?  Could he have unified Germany and worked with Mitterrand toward the development of the European Union?

In 2000, George Bush campaigned against Clinton’s policies in the former Yugoslavia, calling it nation building, a policy that often results in failure.  But, 9/11 changed everything.  Bush soon found himself nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His successor, Barack Obama, campaigned against Bush’s policies in those two far away lands.  Once inaugurated, he was off to the Middle East to address the Arab public so as to differentiate himself from his predecessor. But, the financial crisis and his response to it define his first term more than any ideology he espoused. 

It was not the policies on which Bush and Obama campaigned that mattered.  It was their character and their ability to make a decision in moments of crisis and stick with them. 

It’s great to focus on policy as a framework for the direction of the country (any country).  However, it’s naïve to think that the political and international landscape is so benign as to permit a candidate to actually follow their prescription for governance.  It is usually a crisis and a leader’s response to it that defines their tenure.  And, it’s their ability to embrace the Machiavellian concept of virtue that determines their success. 

Policy wonks may decry the way in which the media – and most voters – focus on personality or, to put in high-mindedly, character of the candidates.  But, at the end of the day, character is more important than policies. 

WHO WILL LEAD?

Hope, Love, Forgiveness… Can Society Achieve It?

-->

Recently, my brother sent me something that got me thinking.  It was a quote from Reinhold Niebuhr. Here it is in part:  “Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope…  Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore, we are saved by love.  No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint.  Therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness.”

That’s a lot to digest.  But, if you can accept the first sentence – embrace the notion that civil society can achieve great things -- then you must accept the rest of the statement. And, if you do, you are forced to elevate your expectations – our expectations – of others and ourselves.

Much of our lives are governed by the drive to attain credentials. We measure our kids by their grades, success at sports and SAT scores.   We measure ourselves by an endless stream of degrees, titles, certifications and awards all of which are beautifully presented on our LinkedIn profiles.  Is that how you value yourself?  C’mon…  really?

Life isn’t about how we’re graded; it’s about who we are.  And, who we are is very complicated.  Most of our mind is occupied by the unconscious.  While our analytical mind expresses logic and reason, our emotions assign value and are the basis for reason.  We progress as individuals or as a society when reason incites passion.

So, what incites our passion?  How do we undertake great initiatives that realize the promise of Niebuhr’s assertion? 

Western society is programmed according to “humanist” tradition, a philosophy that emphasizes the value of people both individually and collectively.  The tenets of humanism can be traced to the ancient Greek philosophers and they re-emerge throughout history.  Humanism survived the Dark Ages and was reincarnated through the British Enlightenment during the 17^th Century – through the works of John Locke, Adam Smith and Scot David Hume.  It evolved in the 18^th Century in the French Enlightenment of Rousseau and Voltaire.  It took form in the Declaration of Independence authored by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman. 

The notion of human rights is powerfully attractive, not only to us in the West but also, to people the world over.  Wherever religious conflict arises, tolerance is urged.  The concept of self-rule, championed by Jefferson and Voltaire, is fundamental to the Arab Spring.  Although European in their origin, these ideas now form the basis on which the international community judges nations. 

Exemplary of Niebuhr’s thinking, the hopes of the Age of Enlightenment have taken many lifetimes to spread the world over. 

A great quote from the Iron Lady (a movie about the life of former British PM Margaret Thatcher) expresses it thusly:  “Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions. Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become your character. And watch your character, for it becomes your destiny. What we think, we become.”

Our conscious mind craves money and success.  Yet, at a deeper level, we seek moments of transcendence.  Most people cannot achieve the promise of Thatcher’s words – what we think, we become.  It is rarer still that what we think can be captured and expressed so eloquently that it influences world events for generations.  Yet, the inexorable surge for freedom, equal rights and tolerance continues.

The 20^th Century was dominated by tumultuous events that distracted us from our core human values of tolerance and hope.  The first quarter of the century was shaped by the collapse of both the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires.  It was followed by economic depression and holocaust.  The second half was subsumed in a monumental struggle between two great nuclear powers. 

The post-Cold War era has brought us economic prosperity followed by collapse.  The end of the old world order has brought us terrorism and war.

Yet, I have hope.  Hope that civil society will prevail in accordance with humanist tradition.  Hope that we will continue to evolve according to the tenets of tolerance and self-rule.  Those ideas are part of our DNA.  That they have been expressed in so many ways for thousands of years is ample evidence. 

The only question is:  WHO WILL LEAD?