What Makes a Leader?

[3Vee]

In another forum, I ran into a rehash of the "Abraham Lincoln sucked" "No, Abraham Lincoln was the pwn" "Wait, FDR was better/worse/stupid/God" (depending) debate.

So I wondered: what makes a leader great?

Let's look at Lincoln for a minute. He was recognized in his day as one of the best politicians in the field. His election as President may have guaranteed the outbreak of the American Civil War when it happened, but as I understand it it probably would have come at some point anyway. Regardless, he got the votes, he kept the nation fighting. The moral issues probably will never be resolved, and the Constitutional ones are almost as cloudy. He was an effective executive leader for the US: is he great?

What about Churchill? He led the UK through WWII, but without the war pressure he couldn't keep the government behind him. (I know nothing about UK popular opinion - for some reason that didn't make it into the history book.) His spirit was crucial to breaking European facism, but was he truly great?

Or maybe we should look at Ghandi. He never led a revolt, exactly. He never had to deal with armed conflict the same way. Yet he may have had a far greater impact in the end. But was he a great leader? Would he even have considered himself a leader?

There are countless other examples, of course, of famous and influential people in positions of power who got things done. Caesar, Elizabeth I of England, Mohammed, Lenin - the list goes on.

Additionally, there's the other side of the question. Why do some putative "leaders" just - fail? Take the current President (not to mention the Congress) of the USA. Bush has managed to maintain his "War on Terror" despite everything critics said. The Taliban are gone, and Afghanistan seems to be settling down. Saddam is gone, and Iraq... is a problem. But there are, conceiveably, ways it can be fixed. He actually cut taxes, which considering he said he would in his campaign, is a minor miracle. He's tried to deal with the education problem - not well, but then it's a complete mess. Despite all of what ought to be success, the only trust he has in the US right now is from Republican hard-liners and maybe the military, and the foreign reputation, except maybe in Israel, is if possible, probably worse. Is it just because he can't pronounce "nuclear", or is there a bigger problem?

I'm not prepared to answer the question I've posed, but I was curious to see what others had to say.

[ClintonM]

What makes a great leader is someone who's selfless and cares about the good of the country rather than their own gain (Bush = Friends with Gas Companies, Cheney = Gun Business... Coincidence with the War in Iraq?).

Although selflessness makes a good leader, also someone who is willing to take suggestions from other people (AHEM, not even going to say it!) and is willing to adjust their ideals to fit what they are leading.

It's not about independent goals, it's about the people and what's best for them. A true leader is a "loving" one in this sense.

Now, Hitler was a leader and he did pretty well, however he did not fill all of these qualities (not because of what he did, but why he did them (SELF GAIN)). I'm sure there will be arguments because of the evils he committed, but you have to admit he was a pretty good leader, just not a "true" one.

Abraham Lincoln met all of these qualities, hence he was a "true leader", he helped pave the road for the slaves to be freed and ultimately was killed because of some of the selfless acts he did and people didn't agree with.

I'll discuss more later, but I'm busy at the moment ;).

[ecyor0]

Whether or not someone is a good leader depends very much on what situation they come into power in. Churchill had already run for and failed to get Prime Ministership twice before WWII. And Hitler was originally chosen by his party to be leader because they thought he would make a good puppet ruler :rolleyes: Although in both those cases it maybe the fact that war draws out ones true strength or something.
Of course, a good head for details and an ability to delegate go a long way towards an effective leader.

[Neo]

Clinton, I have no idea what it you were trying to say there, but it doesn't seem as if it was actually rellevant to this topic. I mean yeah, you discussed leaders in general, cliched terms, but what about those leaders who have to make hard decisions?

Would a good leader know when to be decisive and make crucial decisions, regardless of his popular opinion?

You also bring in Bush and Cheney to bash them, and don't get me wrong, they deserve it, but if you think we are in Iraq and Afgahnistan for Oil then you are fooling yourself.

We don't know for sure what propelled Lincoln's assassin, except for what history tells us.

Do we know why JFK was really assassinated? Will we ever truly know?

I think what defines a good leader would rest more on being able to do what is right for his people -- not what is right for corporations, or whoever else he's got in his pockets.

Bush and Cheney, along with many of America's leaders are bad because they are out of touch with the average american, and many americans are so totally brainwashed either by the media, or by their own religious or other beliefs that they don't see the real trouble.

The moment -- the MOMENT -- that Bush claimed "God" spoke to him is when he should've been outed. That statement alone scares the complete shit out of me. You are free to commune with your God in whatever way you wish, but the moment you become president, this "voice" has no place telling you what to do, and/or you've no right to base the actions of your country on it.

However, I'll say this, a good leader is loved and hated. You will never have 100% approval rating, no matter how good a leader you are.

-Neo

[Prozerran]

I think I can sum this up with a quote from Gladiator:

You wrote to me once, listing the four chief virtues: Wisdom, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance. As I read the list, I knew I had none of them. But I have other virtues, father. Ambition. That can be a virtue when it drives us to excel. Resourcefulness, courage, perhaps not on the battlefield, but... there are many forms of courage. Devotion, to my family and to you. But none of my virtues were on your list.

And it's true. Let's apply it to Bush. Is he wise? Maybe in his own little world. Justice? I don't see that when he's allowing his own members of his administration to be questioned as long as it's "off the record." Fortitude? I'd summarily state that each attempt at resolve is trumped by his lack of wisdom. Temperance? Uh. No. "We're going to smoke them out of their holes!" Need I say more?

And we all know how bad of a leader Commodus turned out to be, and I think we all know how terrible Bush has turned out to be. I won't go into other leaders mentioned. I'll rest my case on this.

[Icarus]

A good leader is plato's philosopher king. Someone who isn't just another product of a partisan factory, but someone who truly utilizes his wisdom.

a good leader must be either loved or feared, or a mix of the two. He uses that to his advantage, keeping himself in power, and using his power to advance his society further. He knows his land, his people, and all their customs, so he can accommodate them accordingly. And he most certainly can't have any outside influence over him, and has to be strong enough not to allow people to have influence over him.

[ClintonM]

Clinton, I have no idea what it you were trying to say there, but it doesn't seem as if it was actually rellevant to this topic. I mean yeah, you discussed leaders in general, cliched terms, but what about those leaders who have to make hard decisions?

I guess the "deluded" one isn't very well understood.

What I said made perfect sense, SELFLESSNESS and COMPASSION makes a "true leader", that's the generalization. Sure, he a true leader won't always have everyone on his side, that would be impossible. Doing what is right, however, is not.

My deluded beliefs also lead me to believe that this war is about more than just fighting terrorism, it's indeed about gaining oil and selling weaponry the military so desperately needs in a time of war. I also don't believe that it's pure coincidence that our leaders are also involved with both Oil and Weapon sales.

Kinda funny how some government officials said it'd take some drastic event (something like that) to happen in order for the U.S. to open its eyes/improve...

Perhaps I am deluded, but there are endless possibilities which are causing the events of today.

[Neo]

I guess the "deluded" one isn't very well understood.

What I said made perfect sense, SELFLESSNESS and COMPASSION makes a "true leader", that's the generalization. Sure, he a true leader won't always have everyone on his side, that would be impossible. Doing what is right, however, is not.
I'm sorry, how many leaders in recent history were completely selfless and were filled with compassion? That works in fiction -- however it does not work in real life. Leaders must be ruthless, to an extent. You are free to believe what you want, but you can't lead by being meek, or feeling compassion for others. At some point you must also lead.

My deluded beliefs also lead me to believe that this war is about more than just fighting terrorism, it's indeed about gaining oil and selling weaponry the military so desperately needs in a time of war. I also don't believe that it's pure coincidence that our leaders are also involved with both Oil and Weapon sales.
You are still deluded if you think we are thier for Oil. You are buying into the hype and propaganda surrounding Bush'n'Idiots -- and our military doesn't desperately need weapons.

Kinda funny how some government officials said it'd take some drastic event (something like that) to happen in order for the U.S. to open its eyes/improve...
Speaking in riddles or vagueness isn't going to further help me to understand what it is you are trying to saying. Who are these people who said it? When did they say it? What did they mean?

Perhaps I am deluded, but there are endless possibilities which are causing the events of today.

You know what truly scares me? That people like Bush think that the Rapture is something that will truly happen, and will happen soon. People believe it so fervently that they are actually willing to let the world goto shit because they believe it will "bring it on" or something like that.

As for King Solomon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Historical_figure

-Neo

[hammocksleeper]

If I could make a comment at the risk of having my post deleted for being off-topic: it seems like there is a lot of back-and-forth arguing over what makes a leader but not a whole lot of proof or evidence being shown to support the statements. Maybe each of you could offer some case studies or draw from authoritative sources on the topic to enhance your argument?

[CaimDark]

If I could make a comment at the risk of having my post deleted for being off-topic: it seems like there is a lot of back-and-forth arguing over what makes a leader but not a whole lot of proof or evidence being shown to support the statements. Maybe each of you could offer some case studies or draw from authoritative sources on the topic to enhance your argument?

Due to the subjective nature of the subject, you will be hard pressed to find some kind of "proof". We will probably have to be content with mere speculation.

Personally, I think a "great leader" is made by circumstance. Not by being selfless, or just, or whatnot, these are all idealistic cliches. A leader is not selfless. If he were, he would not even get into politics in the first place. A leader cannot be just all the time, since being just for someone often means being unjust to someone else.

The leaders we regard as "great" are all leaders that had to deal with some kind of major crisis or event, such as wars, fight for independence, revolution, etc. And most importantly, succeeded or met a tragic end while "fighting the good fight". History is written by the winners, after all. George Washington, Lincoln, Churchill, Roosevelt, Ghandi, Cesar, De Gaulle. Those who ruled over peaceful, boring times are always forgotten, no matter how efficient or "great" they may have been. If history had been different, we might just as well be talking about the "greatness" of Xerxes, Stalin, Saladin or Hitler.

[IrishDutchman]

If history had been different, we might just as well be talking about the "greatness" of Xerxes, Stalin, Saladin or Hitler.

You mentioning Saladin got me thinking. Saladin lost, but is by many still seen as a great and wise leader.
Would it be fair to say that a leader who lost his fight, but maintained a good reputation afterwards, is a truly great leader?

[TheOutcast]

Hmm....... Everybody has their own opinions on what makes a leader a good one. What I think makes leaders great depends mainly on what their cause is. I don't think you need an example to prove that. Say, people like Hitler, he had a horrible cause, which was to kill a shitload of jews for bitchin' him off in WWI (at least that's what I heard why he killed lots of jews. I hear lots of BS). Anyways, I think you know what I mean..... Basically, leaders can only be great if their cause is great.....

[TheListener]

Foresight. Above all, foresight. Many people think that intervention in a conflict over there might be beneficial, but 5 years down the road, will it? Being able to estimate the impact of choices in the long run is important.

[CaimDark]

You mentioning Saladin got me thinking. Saladin lost, but is by many still seen as a great and wise leader.
Would it be fair to say that a leader who lost his fight, but maintained a good reputation afterwards, is a truly great leader?

I will not state what makes a leader "truly great", as so far this is in the realm of speculation and personal opinion. But you're right, Saladin is seen by many as a great leader. However, in the western world, he is mostly forgotten. The spotlight is always on the leaders of the winning side.

[3dshocker]

A leader is well spoken, has charisma and the ability to win people over for his cause. Adolf Hitler is an excellent example.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

A leader is well spoken, has charisma and the ability to win people over for his cause. Adolf Hitler is an excellent example.
A leader doesn't have to be any of those things. An EFFECTIVE leader, on the other hand, must be. For reference, read Machiavelli's "The Prince" for how a ruler must conduct himself in times of peace, how to prepare for war, and how to succeed in all things pertaining to your kingdom. It's a very interesting read, and what I got out of it is that an effective leader must be respected (but not out of fear), must be charismatic, and must be able to make the right decisions that will keep his people behind him. Anyone can make empty promises and win people over - it's the ability to keep them won over and to fulfill your obligations to them as their leader that will immortalize you in history as one of the greats.

Of course, you could always take the other route of saying "History shall be kind to me, as I intend to write it." (as Hitler did)

For my money, Hitler was an ok guy. Except for the killing of the Jews and a few of the other atrocities he did in the name of architecture that were never fully realized in stone, I could see him as a leader that would have made a good difference in any other period of history. The only thing is that he lacked the Machiavellian profile of the effective leader (especially keeping people behind him of their own free will).

I feel that as with many of the other ineffective US leaders who have brought us into unnecessary war in the past, history will not be kind to George Bush Jr or Sr, or Lyndon B. Johnson for that matter. Under false pretenses they goaded us into wars that have only drained our economy and killed our men and as history has shown, we as a country have not stayed behind these people, and only have done so through the use of drafts (inescapable sentencing in most cases)

[3dshocker]

I assumed based on the title of the thread that the question "what makes a leader" implies what goes into making a good leader, which naturally leads into what's effective.