A few weeks ago, President Bush criticized President Putin for the Russian form of democracy that they use. Now, a poll was taken afterwards that said that Russians like having a strong leader, as opposed to a democratically elected government.
What say you? What does it mean to have a “strong leader”? What does it mean to you? Would you be in favor of a strong leader? Does strength in a leader come with a cost to democracy/freedom? Who would you pick as “strong” American presidents?
To me, a “strong leader” exudes confidence when addressing the populace. He or she commands respect from said populace and that leader’s peers throughout the world, rather than demanding respect through intimidation and threats (empty or otherwise).
Of course I would be in favor of a strong leader; it would be preferable to what we have now. A leader who would curtail freedoms or democratic principles is not strong–quite the opposite, in fact. If you are insecure about your strength of leadership, the first thing you do is discourage dissent to give the illusion of strength. True strength comes from preserving the principles of democracy in difficult times, thereby setting an example for the rest of the world to emulate.
As far as “strong” Presidents, we can start with Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, JFK, Carter (yes, Carter!)–men who commanded respect throughout the country and throughout the world.
Generally States need a strong leader when they are in deep dung.
There was a similar thread a few days ago, my contribution was that they emerge when needed.
Putin is a perfect example.
So long as it’s me.
Apologies. I’ve been out of Great Debates for a short while because I get fed up with some of the devolving “debates” around here.
As far as what I think a strong leader is (and yes, Putin is a good example), it’s ironically one that does the will of the people, and, when confronted in cases in which the will of the people is not positive, that leader will do the opposite in the face of firestorms of criticism. Would I argue that Bush is “strong” in this definition? To a point. We supported the Wars and he’s “staying the course”, so that does show strength. However, I worry about the ends to his methods.
On the other hand, a strong leader must do what is right. Doing the right thing seldom involves killing many.
This is not a Bush-bashing comment, because it applies to any politician: when is “staying the course” simply* stubborness*? In the business world, I’m sure you’ve had occasion to work with leaders who refuse to back down from a damn-fool idea because they either refuse to admit they were wrong or they don’t want to let the opposition “win.” Is sticking-to-it automatically a quality to be admired, regardless of the motivation?
Tell that to Lincoln, Wilson, both Roosevelts and Truman when you get the chance. For that matter, you can include Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower on that list. Every single one of them participated in a war in a military capacity, precipitated a war (in the Founding Fathers’ cases, an aggressive war, i.e. a rebellion, also known as treason), or made decisions that led to the deaths of many thousands of people. What do they all have in common?
I’ll be damned. They were all Presidents. Doing the right thing often involves killing many, sad as it is.
Stubbornness is one of the hallmarks of weak leadership. A weak leader cannot envision alternatives and will thus stubbornly stay the course in order to avoid embarassment or appearing weak.
A good leader always needs to be able to reevaluate his plan against reality.