The United States of America has been blessed with a natural process of munificent leaders emerging in times of critical tensions. The age-old question of whether leaders are born to lead, or the circumstances of history forge leadership character in certain individuals, is still the fuel of philosophical debate. The point of fact remains that, regardless of initiative, the United States has had the benefit of experiencing great leadership. Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her latest book, Leadership in Turbulent Times, cites four presidents that embody the nature, commitment and moral fiber of great leadership: Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. She bases her opinion on an analysis that, in their times under great pressure and faced with adversarial relationships, they were able to lead people in the pursuit of a greater prosperity. This leadership was framed in the purpose of maintaining the Union. In other words, citizens saw the greater need of protecting the idealism of the republic over their personal, political motivations. I would add to her list George Washington and Ronald Reagan.
The ages that these great presidents represented were the times of Independence, the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the Civil Rights Era, and Globalization. The success for causes pursued required war, sacrifice, economic restructuring, racial reconciliation, and world leadership. In these times, the common code of leadership was a vision beyond the common elements of the current events.
Times of turbulence appear to be complicated beyond any clear path of righteousness. The issues of conflict become so personal that no cause of purpose can be emotionally identified in the benefits of unity. Trust among brethren is lost. Hope of reciprocal benefit is abandoned.
Strange to contemplate, yet the ratification of the United States Constitution required the State of New York to compromise economic power to South Carolina. New Yorkers accepted the argument that they would be stronger in unity by sharing of benefits than standing separately on their single economic strength. TheFederalist Papers, in proposing such a concept of governance advocated a principle unheard of at the time. What appeared so complicated was really simple. Liberty for all, protected by all, provided security for all.
Where are the leaders today? They are present, yet to be recognized. They will receive their mantle of authority from the people in the next presidential election cycle. What leader speaks beyond the immediate circumstances of current events? What candidate for President calls on the virtues of the historical promise that was the United States of America in 1776? What individual asking for support trusts the people to self-govern?
Among the Democrats, two have shown potential. The Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. Both have rejected impeachment of President Trump without compelling evidence for cause. Both have stood on the principle of capitalism as a sound economic structure for the production of jobs and wealth. Buttigieg has coined the term “moral capitalism.” He advocates economic development wherein free enterprise is protected without leaving anyone behind.
Donald Trump has established the priority of American interests first. This, in fact, is not in conflict with what is needed most in the world today, free-choice enterprise. The two great economic systems in competition today, American capitalism versus Chinese communism, will reach a determination of final victor within a generation. President Trump is the first president to actually confront China and hold them accountable for their repeated, grievous breaches of the laws and regulations of the World Trade Organization. If communism wins, freedom is suppressed, individual liberty is destroyed, and the light of the world goes dark.
What is it that President Trump and Mayor Buttigieg hold in common in the presidential forum of policy debate? Citizens symptomized by blurred vision and movement conflict dislike them in reference to each candidate’s personal life. Liberals detest President Trump because they question the character of his demeanor. Some conservatives will question Mayor Buttigieg’s character because he is gay. What’s most important is to evaluate and process the vision presented as the determinative factor.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher fought side-by-side with President Ronald Reagan to ensure that free enterprise was the choice of governments over socialism challenged by economic globalization in the 20thcentury. Thatcher and Reagan did not seek privilege for an elite class. Instead, they exuded visionary leadership as a beacon of hope for liberty beyond the current events of their times.
Bad choices for leadership by the citizenship have consequences. Such was the case in Germany in the 1930s. Winston Churchill warned repeatedly that the price to be paid for not holding Adolph Hitler accountable would be unconscionable. Hitler’s rise to power was partially due to stressful times in Germany. But his early success was partly due to the allied powers not heeding Churchill’s warnings and allowing him to reach a point of evil critical mass.
False prophets lie unequivocally. Remember, Hitler promised a chicken in every pot and a Volkswagen in every garage.
From 1215 to 1776 to the present, through civil wars, economic crises, civil rights tensions, world wars, and economic globalization, liberty has survived by the presence of visionary leadership in times of turbulence.
Now, what is to be said of current events? The conflicts are not as complicated as they appear. Liberty and freedom are as pure in purpose and outcome as they have been throughout history. Current events are constant in results. They blur visions and bring contempt to movements.
In the movie The American President, the memorable line is that people will follow anyone to a mirage. And when they arrive, they drink the sand because they don’t know the difference. Many times, a lie is as alluring as the truth.
Whoever will rise to lead in these times depends upon the decisions of the citizens and the vision they will follow. It is important to remember that, with the exception of George Washington, most great leaders were not loved in the times of crisis in which they led. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated out of intolerance and hatred.
What is critical in the decision-making process of who to support for President of the United States is to first understand the vision which one believes leads to unity in the greater good.
Seek first the heartfelt vision that represents the truth of the ages. Support and follow the leader with the courage to manifest that vision’s principles.
Reject the false policies that are proven by history to be lies lest we fall prey to the mirage of failed promises.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?