What makes a great politician?

[Gencor]

I don't think that it is that complicated. What makes a great President is his or her ability to communicate. As flawed as Bill Clinton was, as President, people loved him because he could communicate with them. They actually understood what he said. Another great attribute of a President is to be sincere. To mean what they say and say what they mean and follow up. To have a vision and make that vision something that everyone can see and believe in and then work to make it happen. The ability to bring people together for a greater cause. Dignity and treat everyone with respect. These are the simple qualities that make a great politician. Above all, the greatest politicians I have ever known all had humility.

[AussieMick]

(12-28-2017 08:41 PM)Gencor Wrote:  I don't think that it is that complicated. What makes a great President is his or her ability to communicate. As flawed as Bill Clinton was, as President, people loved him because he could communicate with them. They actually understood what he said. Another great attribute of a President is to be sincere. To mean what they say and say what they mean and follow up. To have a vision and make that vision something that everyone can see and believe in and then work to make it happen. The ability to bring people together for a greater cause. Dignity and treat everyone with respect. These are the simple qualities that make a great politician. Above all, the greatest politicians I have ever known all had humility.

thanks, Gencor. When I asked the question my aim was to assess Lincoln against the 'job selection critieria'. It would not be reasonable for him to score 10/10 on each (or any) ... and we'd all have our own scoring of him.
Your criteria seems to be as good as any. And I agree about communication. Love him or hate him, Ronald Reagan was a great communicator. Did he have humility ( I mean real humility)? Ronald Reagan?
I dont like giving anybody 10/10 , but Lincoln would have to get close to that on all your criteria.

You had 'work to make it happen'. Yes, but I think a great politician needs to have ability to choose subordinates that can be trusted to share the vision and to be able to work in the team. Lincoln would have to get 8/10 (but I cant think of any other politician getting as good as that).

I also think flexibility and pragmatism are essential. A great politician needs to be able to recognise risks, options, assumptions, their own and other people's weaknesses, and needs to be able to know what is possible and achievable. Needs to acknowledge errors and move on. I 'd give him 9/10.

I think Lincoln may have been almost too trusting of others and almost ... almost not ruthless enough (in the way of some of other great politicians). I choose the word 'almost' there because I think he was always aware of the abilities of others. Thats why he kept Seward even after the Sumpter Fort fiasco (sending the 'wrong' ship). Thats why he kept faith with McClellan for so long. Then theres other examples (debateable I'm sure). Hooker. Salmon Chase. It wasnt that he was too trusting. Rather that he knew their capabilities and that despite faults they could lead men and make decisions. So my use of 'almost' is the greatest compliment I can give to Lincoln on these issues (trust and ruthlessness) .

I'm sure he could be ruthless. His cancellation of death sentences of the Missouri Indians, but also enforcing 38. There would have been times when he could have commuted other sentences but didnt. His determination to crush the rebellion by any means possible. His ruthlessness was not unthinking though ... he knew what it involved and why it had to be.

Similarly with his trust in others ... he knew the risks involved and that his trust might be too much or turn out wrong.
I'd give him as near to 10/10 on trust and ruthlessness as its possible to get.

[Gencor]

(12-29-2017 12:04 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 08:41 PM)Gencor Wrote:  I don't think that it is that complicated. What makes a great President is his or her ability to communicate. As flawed as Bill Clinton was, as President, people loved him because he could communicate with them. They actually understood what he said. Another great attribute of a President is to be sincere. To mean what they say and say what they mean and follow up. To have a vision and make that vision something that everyone can see and believe in and then work to make it happen. The ability to bring people together for a greater cause. Dignity and treat everyone with respect. These are the simple qualities that make a great politician. Above all, the greatest politicians I have ever known all had humility.

thanks, Gencor. When I asked the question my aim was to assess Lincoln against the 'job selection critieria'. It would not be reasonable for him to score 10/10 on each (or any) ... and we'd all have our own scoring of him.
Your criteria seems to be as good as any. And I agree about communication. Love him or hate him, Ronald Reagan was a great communicator. Did he have humility ( I mean real humility)? Ronald Reagan?
I dont like giving anybody 10/10 , but Lincoln would have to get close to that on all your criteria.

You had 'work to make it happen'. Yes, but I think a great politician needs to have ability to choose subordinates that can be trusted to share the vision and to be able to work in the team. Lincoln would have to get 8/10 (but I cant think of any other politician getting as good as that).

I also think flexibility and pragmatism are essential. A great politician needs to be able to recognise risks, options, assumptions, their own and other people's weaknesses, and needs to be able to know what is possible and achievable. Needs to acknowledge errors and move on. I 'd give him 9/10.

I think Lincoln may have been almost too trusting of others and almost ... almost not ruthless enough (in the way of some of other great politicians). I choose the word 'almost' there because I think he was always aware of the abilities of others. Thats why he kept Seward even after the Sumpter Fort fiasco (sending the 'wrong' ship). Thats why he kept faith with McClellan for so long. Then theres other examples (debateable I'm sure). Hooker. Salmon Chase. It wasnt that he was too trusting. Rather that he knew their capabilities and that despite faults they could lead men and make decisions. So my use of 'almost' is the greatest compliment I can give to Lincoln on these issues (trust and ruthlessness) .

I'm sure he could be ruthless. His cancellation of death sentences of the Missouri Indians, but also enforcing 38. There would have been times when he could have commuted other sentences but didnt. His determination to crush the rebellion by any means possible. His ruthlessness was not unthinking though ... he knew what it involved and why it had to be.

Similarly with his trust in others ... he knew the risks involved and that his trust might be too much or turn out wrong.
I'd give him as near to 10/10 on trust and ruthlessness as its possible to get.

I have to agree with you about Lincoln, however, I also admired Lincoln's tolerance. Funny, we don't talk about that much, but Lincoln was very tolerant of people. He very rarely was known to ever be upset or even show it. He had a calmness about him that was always sort of masked by his sense of humor. I agree that he knew how to let others lead but he also knew that the ultimate leadership was always his and he was humble about it. Very few real leaders promote their rivals but Lincoln did. Lincoln could be ruthless, for sure, however, he was not known for it and much was never made of it. When I think of Lincoln, I always think of him, not just as a President, but a man. What he was enduring in his personal life was devastating enough but to lead this country through one of its most trying times in our history, surrounded by rivals, the death of his child, his wife's personal struggle with depression and his own personal grief and yet, his strength of character was incredible. There he scores the highest of marks. Lincoln knew himself and he was comfortable in his own skin. No leader is ever perfect and certainly no politician could ever be labeled as perfect but Lincoln had a sincerity of purpose that always carried him above the rest, even his rivals. It was because of his humility that his rivals could never best him. Not in the eyes of the public.

[AussieMick]

Yes, I think Lincoln's humility is the main (there are others) quality that puts him above other great politicians. Some politicians have tried to convey an aura of humility but Lincoln didnt need to try ... he just had it.

I think if you try to gauge the greatness of this man, I suggest you measure him against , say, 3 other great politicians. Churchill? A great wartime leader. But he was by no means humble and certainly had no humility. As a peacetime politician he was fairly average (and thats being kind). FDR ? Sorry but (as I have said before) he was too trusting of Stalin. Humility, yes he had (I think) that to a considerable degree. Washington ... actually I think he was both a great politician and also a very good wartime leader. He did though I think lack humility ... due no doubt to the time and his upbringing.

(Oh, and Stalin? Bonaparte ? Mao? Politicians such as these obviously "achieved" much in their own eyes. But Humility? They had zero. And therefore do not qualify as great.)

So, Lincoln stands heads and shoulders way above three of the greatest politicians I can think of.

[JMadonna]

(12-23-2017 10:14 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I don't do to the theater, opera, or ballet much, but here is one opera that is my favorite, and I was fortunate enough to see it preformed on stage..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JaeBxYCI9k

Wonder why they never came up with a Phantom of the Ballet?

Ever try to get a phantom into a tutu?
Thats why

[Eva Elisabeth]

(12-30-2017 04:04 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  Yes, I think Lincoln's humility is the main (there are others) quality that puts him above other great politicians. Some politicians have tried to convey an aura of humility but Lincoln didnt need to try ... he just had it.

I think if you try to gauge the greatness of this man, I suggest you measure him against , say, 3 other great politicians. Churchill? A great wartime leader. But he was by no means humble and certainly had no humility. As a peacetime politician he was fairly average (and thats being kind). FDR ? Sorry but (as I have said before) he was too trusting of Stalin. Humility, yes he had (I think) that to a considerable degree. Washington ... actually I think he was both a great politician and also a very good wartime leader. He did though I think lack humility ... due no doubt to the time and his upbringing.

(Oh, and Stalin? Bonaparte ? Mao? Politicians such as these obviously "achieved" much in their own eyes. But Humility? They had zero. And therefore do not qualify as great.)

So, Lincoln stands heads and shoulders way above three of the greatest politicians I can think of.

http://lincolnandchurchill.org/
If you click through the site there's also an article (download) that compares Lincoln, Churchill and FDR:
http://lincolnandchurchill.org/lewis-leh...r-leaders/
For me, what I quoted in post #30 here still nails (some of) it:
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...ght=Brandt

[David Lockmiller]

(12-31-2017 09:33 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  For me, what I quoted in post #30 here still nails (some of) it:
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...ght=Brandt

The following words from Chancellor Brandt's speech in Springfield, Illinois reminded me of two short addresses to Ohio regiments that President Abraham Lincoln made late in the American Civil War:

"[E]ven an outsider may venture the guess that those who stood 'on the other side of the barricade' during the Civil War would also agree today without hesitation that the United States could not have become a haven of freedom and the leading world power had the unity of the nation been shattered."

On August 18, 1864, in an address to the 164th Ohio Regiment, President Abraham Lincoln said:

"We have, as all will agree, a free government, where every man has a right to be equal with every other man. In this great struggle, this form of government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one. There is involved in this struggle the question whether your children and my children shall enjoy the privileges we have enjoyed. I say this in order to impress upon you, if you are not already so impressed, that no small matter should divert us from our great purpose."

And, on August 22, 1864, in an address to the 166th Ohio Regiment, President Lincoln said:

"It is not merely for today, but for all time to come, that we should perpetuate for our children's children that great and free government we have enjoyed all or lives. I beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours. I happen, temporarily, to occupy this White House. i am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father's child has.

It is in order that each one of you may have, through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this that the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright -- not only for one, but for two or three years, [if necessary]. The nation is worth fighting for to secure such an inestimable jewel."

(Source: "The Democracy of the Constitution: And Other Addresses and Essays," by Henry Cabot Lodge, pages 152-53.)

It may be of interest to note that in a number of the source books that I consulted, the words "if necessary" were left out. I finally found these words once again in "The Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln ...: Together with His State Papers...," by Henry Jarvis Raymond, Francis Bicknell Carpenter, page 607.

[My Name Is Kate]

A very healthy ego is required to believe one can take on the job of leading an entire nation, especially in times of great turmoil and when that leadership has far-reaching ramifications for the rest of the world. Humility is an important and admirable quality in any leader, but sometimes it is masked, and probably needs to be when the adversaries are the likes of Hitler, Stalin and ISIS, or deep-state embeds galore. Politicians can be great actors too (not intended as a jab at Reagan or anyone else), and that may be an important requirement of the job, at times. But false humility as a persistent personality trait is worse than outright arrogance, imo.

[David Lockmiller]

(01-02-2018 01:17 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  A very healthy ego is required to believe one can take on the job of leading an entire nation, especially in times of great turmoil . . . .

I, too, have always thought that it was amazing that a country lawyer from the far West would have the courage and the "healthy ego" to take on such a monumental task under such tremendously difficult circumstances that the nation faced at the time. He had only the experience on the national level of one undistinguished term in the House of Representatives.

The only way that I can account for such courage was his own conviction that the leadership alternatives for the country at the time were unacceptable for the continuation of this democracy. If Lincoln had not run for the Senate seat from Illinois in 1858 and held the series of debates with Douglas, I believe that Senator Douglas would have become President of the United States and taken this nation on a path that would have ended democracy.

Senator Douglas gambled on winning the presidency by yielding to southern Democrats on the extension of slavery issue. He led the northern efforts to end the Missouri Compromise and its limitations on extension of slavery. And, Abraham Lincoln re-entered national politics on this issue that was critical for the future of a democratic nation (England had already ended its slave trade practices). Lincoln was right in both his statements made in his "house divided" speech and his perception of a conspiracy theory that there were high-ranking individuals in all the branches of the government who were eager and willing to make slavery legal in the North, as well as, the South.

Lincoln had the courage to take a stand at a critical time in history. And, he was absolutely the right man for the task.

[AussieMick]

Its an interesting point to raise, Kate (and David), 'healthy ego'. Mental health experts might do well to explore this issue with regard to Lincoln.
It seems accepted that he suffered from bouts of clinical depression. Certainly his family life (from boyhood onwards) was hugely impacted by horrific events.
How then did he cope and have a "healthy ego" (and I agree he did have one, in my definition of those words) ?

How on earth did he manage to identify his objectives and strategise his aims? How did he work with others (some of them corrupt and/or stupid) without losing his temper more often. How did he balance his ideals and principles with what he knew was achievable? How did he manage to converse with and persuade all manner of people that it was he had the ability to lead the country through the complexity facing it? How did he manage the huge workload? How did he cope with the knowledge that some of his decisions resulted in the deaths of many many sons and husbands? In the deaths of his own friends? Did he ever doubt himself? If he did, then how did he deal with it? How did he deal with his own mistakes?

His 'healthy ego' must have been something that could cope with the real defects of his mental health whilst also exercising and improving itself and working very very effectively. Perhaps its an example to us all that those with mental health problems can perform at a very high level. Stephen Hawking and the film A Beautiful Mind are examples. Maybe Lincoln's mental illness problems were not of the same extent but he certainly had a healthy ego. And his achievements are evidence of that.

[Gene C]

Don't forget Mary's "healthy ego".
Have we mentioned a supporting spouse as a factor?

[My Name Is Kate]

I probably should have been more clear about what I meant by "healthy ego." Ideally, a leader should have an ego free of mental defects or major negative personality traits, but I was thinking more in terms of a large ego, since the preceding discussion was about humility. I guess we are lucky that we have had even as many leaders with manageable-sized egos as there were throughout history, given that positions of great power would seem to be a magnet for large egos. Courage and conviction to see what is right and to do it, can and should be a stabilizing factor.

[David Lockmiller]

(01-02-2018 04:50 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  How then did he cope and have a "healthy ego" (and I agree he did have one, in my definition of those words) ?

I think of a "healthy ego" like a well-built and excellently-designed sailing vessel in tremendously storm-battered waters. Sometimes, just staying afloat is quite an accomplishment.

I remember reading a Lincoln story by Stoddard in which Stoddard was working for a long period of time someplace in the White House and he could hear Lincoln endlessly pacing the floor above him in contemplation of some problem. Stoddard finished his work and left, but the last thing that he heard were the pacing footsteps of President Lincoln. Over the years of the Civil War, President Lincoln endured many a storm.

[David Lockmiller]

(12-20-2017 07:42 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  President Kennedy's inspiring words of September 12, 1962 were: "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade."

I was in class at MacArthur High School in Decatur, Illinois when it was announced over the intercom that President Kennedy had been assassinated. It was a very sad day for me and I felt that it was a very great loss for the nation. After the Cuban missile crisis in October, 1962, I remember that my history teacher said at the time that he had been prepared to enter a nuclear bomb shelter that he had built for his family. Those were very serious times and President Kennedy showed great courage and determination as I vividly recall.

I also liked President Kennedy's sense of humor. I was watching a taped news conference at the time and a female journalist got up and asked the President a very long and loaded question about his support for the women's movement and whether he thought his efforts in behalf of this cause had been sufficient. The President's first words in response were: "Obviously, not enough."

Jackie dazzled all of Paris when the Kennedys visited May 31-June 3, 1961. So much greater was the attention paid to her than to him that President Kennedy remarked to the press, with some pride and humor, “I do not think it altogether inappropriate for me to introduce myself. I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris.”

I should like to add another voice to my opinion regarding President Kennedy. Tonight (January 12, 2018) syndicated columnist Mark Shields on the PBS News Hour was responding to the moderator on the issue of President Trump's obscene remark yesterday in discussing the immigration issue in the White House with prominent members of Congress. Mr. Shields, for whom I have a great deal of respect, made the following authoritative comment apropos of Presidential character (and lack thereof):

Mark Shields:

… I used to do political campaigns.

I worked for Senator J. William Fulbright, former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in his last campaign in 1974 in Arkansas. He was a man who was not falsely modest. He’d been president of the University of Arkansas at the age of 34, a Rhodes Scholar, and the Fulbright scholarship program was his creation.

And in talking one night about presidents with whom he had served, not under, whom he had served — with whom he had served, six, and he said, of John Kennedy, he said, “Whenever I went to the White House when John Kennedy was president, I was proud as an American that he was my president.”

[My Name Is Kate]

Adultery is not obscene to you? President Kennedy committed adultery while President (someone correct me if I am wrong about that). President Trump may have committed adultery too at some point in his life, but I'm willing to bet, never as President. The word that President Trump allegedly spoke the other day, does not bother me. It was just a word, crude but accurate. And I'm not convinced he even said it, and he certainly did not say it in a meeting open to the public. LBJ conducted White House meetings while sitting on the toilet. But Kennedy and LBJ were both liberals and Democrats, so that makes what they did okay, right? While we're on the subject, what about President Lincoln's racist jokes and toilet humor? Not always done privately or the world would not know about it.

The people in that meeting with President Trump, who claim to be offended by a word they say he used, yet were not so offended by it that they didn't delight in repeating it publicly so all the world would know, are no friends of the President. They see yet another opportunity to try to bring down a duly-elected president, and that is all it is about.

Also, why bring that incident to this forum? Just because you hate President Trump? Remember, as our moderator has cautioned us repeatedly, young children use this forum too, not just adults (although I'm sure most of those kids are already familiar with the word in dispute).