Edward. R warns us to be careful what we wish for, particularly when it comes to politics. Wish for democratic elections, and you may get duly elected tyranny and terror. Wish for democratic debate, and you may get polarized parties and a divided electorate. Wish for democratic responsiveness and you may get opinion-poll leadership. Wish for statesmanship and you may get demagoguery. One temptation might be to wish for nothing in particular, but then who knows what might happen?
The difficulty seems to congeal around the very nature of political leadership in a democratic state. A democratic leader is, at least in part, an oxymoron. A leader is ahead of those being led, but a democratic leader is also supposed to be a follower, obeying the will of the people.
Neither position is without dangers. Given examples of perverse expressions of popular will — the terrors of the French Revolution, Nazism, Hamas — who can simply rely on democratic sentiment? And given similar examples of demagoguery, who can believe in an enlightened tyranny? We desire strong leaders and justly fear them.
How do examples of admired political leadership differ from examples of tyranny or demagoguery? Simple formulas will not suffice. After all, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, yet is credited with preserving the Constitution. Hitler is often described as a demagogue who spread theories about Jewish conspiracies to mobilize popular support, yet, as the historian Jeffrey Herf argued, this wasn't pure demagoguery: Hitler really believed these theories. "A statesman," declared Harry S. Truman in a comment cited more than once during the two days of talks, "is a politician who's been dead 10 or 15 years." So is it simply a matter of political taste? Is one man's statesman another man's demagogue?
The question remains should Strong Political leaders be admired or Feared?
