How to Evaluate a Political Leader? (3)
- Jia Han
- Nov 18, 2024
- 6 min read
(This is the third installation of the 2024 election)
Our discussion here is limited to the West, mainly the US. Why only West? Because the goal, responsibility, characters, and selection process of political leaders depend on civilization. The word leadership in the West has very different meanings from another civilization, such as China. Religion used to be an integral part of civilization. Mark Lilla wrote [1] “When we cast our eyes over human history, we see that every civilization known to us has been founded on religion, not on philosophy. In healthy societies, religion has helped to forge the social bond and encouraged sacrifice for the good.” Even though the West (the US, Australia, France, etc) is largely secular now (separation of church and state), all Western nations were strongly influenced by Christianity. China in antiquity was dominated by Confucious teachings and now by Marxism. Their political philosophies were completely different from the West. This leads to different expectations of political leaders. The masses also have different ethos, customs, rules, literacy, and history. Under China’s traditional political philosophy, a leader has a much easier job because of a predefined hierarchy. Once this hierarchy is widely acknowledged, a leader only needs to keep everyone in line. An emperor did need to consider relationships with other nations. However, even that was completely different from modern international relations.
Politics in the West are influenced by both Roman and Greek traditions and Judeo-Christianity. The latter adds some Christian values to leadership. Matthew 20:25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The leadership in Christianity has a unique meaning. Modern West is still far from realizing the Bible’s teaching but one can see its imprint in Western politics. Even in Communist nations, names of political leaders reflect some serving (e.g. general secretary). Of course, this is in name only for Communists. I mention this so that you will be aware of the differences.
Steven B Smith’s textbook, Political Philosophy [2], is an excellent starting place of political theory. The book is an undergraduate textbook, so it is not hard to read. However, many university graduates study natural sciences and technology, which often makes them not deep thinkers. A person with such a background can easily miss thought processes or critical thinking. That will not work if one wants to understand philosophy or political science. You might need to study this textbook a few times before appreciating some fine points. One important point is the differences between political science, natural sciences, and technologies. I believe that Aristotle introduced the term science. Aristotle pointed out that political science is different from natural sciences and technologies. Try to understand why political science is many times more difficult than natural sciences and why unlike natural sciences there is no definitive solution in political science. The chapter on the Bible is relevant to political leadership.
The chapter on Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) is important here. It explains why a prince (corresponding to a president or prime minister in modern times) must be strong. If a prince is weak and fails to make difficult decisions, it may cause many people to die or suffer due to your decision. Among recent leaders, JFK, and Reagan are strong leaders but Obama and Biden are weak.
Russia’s expansion started in 2008. Below are quotes from [3].
The international reaction to Russia’s military campaign in Georgia was to prove remarkably muted, with Moscow suffering few negative consequences. On the contrary, EU leaders led calls for a ceasefire that appeared to favor Russian interests, while the US under the new Obama administration was soon calling for a reset in relations with the Kremlin.
Understandably, many in Moscow interpreted this accommodating approach as an informal invitation for further acts of aggression in Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. Six years after the Russo-Georgian War, Russia embarked on a far more comprehensive military campaign against Ukraine, where Moscow continues to occupy Crimea and large swathes of eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region.
The 2008 Russo-Georgian War is now widely recognized as a landmark event in the transition from the era of post-Soviet cooperation between Russia and the West towards today’s Cold War climate. The Atlantic Council invited a range of experts to share their views on the legacy of the conflict and its impact on the international security environment.
[4] also noted that 2008 was a pivotal point for Putin. Obama’s weakness also showed in his policy initiative on Cuba. It was OK to consider a new start toward Cuba but at least he should ask the Cuban regime for something in return. But he did not.
Biden’s weakness was shown in the Afghan withdrawal. That exhibited American weakness and made bad actors in the world think about how to take advantage of American weakness. Before that, Putin made several aggressions but only in small steps. After the Afghan withdrawal, Putin thought this was a good time. If Russia could overwhelm Ukraine quickly, the world would only protest verbally, not much else. The rest is history. As for the Middle East, Iran was the major source. Biden was largely beholden to Obama’s influence. First, most of Biden’s national security team came from Obama’s administration. Second, Biden seems grateful to whoever helped him to get elected. So he is grateful to Obama (since he was selected his VP). The Obama Administration, European, and other allies negotiated with Iran a pact (JCPOA). From experts’ comments, it was a bad compact and had no chance of passing the US Congress. Nevertheless, Biden tried hard to appease Iran. Partially because of concerns about Russia sanctions raising oil prices, the Biden administration relaxed sanctions on Iran. Then Iran gained $100+B and used most of them to support terrorist proxies. This led to the Oct.7 terrorist attack on Israel and the following wars in the Middle East. Unfortunately, Joe Biden is weak. His decisions are often questionable [5].
Now, turn to the 2024 election. Donald Trump is a known quantity. He is a strong leader but does have flaws. About Kamala Harris, we know little, if anything at all, of her. First, according to [6], she began her political career by sleeping with her boss. This was very bad. For the rest of her career, it is difficult to find any event that tested her leadership skills. Some may say why not give her the benefit of doubt. When the world is facing a dangerous time, we cannot afford to try someone unknown.
Leadership is a huge topic. The above only scratches the surface. [7] in Chinese is from a little different angle. Finally, two more recent reflections on why the Democrat lost this election [8,9]. However, I still think Mark Lilla gave the best analysis [10]. In fact, he forecast this in 2017 after the first Trump win. A short Chinese summary of [10] is in [11].
References:
Mark Lilla, 2008, The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West, Vintage, 2008
Steven B. Smith, "Political Philosophy," Yale University Press, 2012.
The 2008 Russo-Georgian War: Putin’s green light - Atlantic Council
Kennan at 50: Global Reach Impact of Russia’s Invasion Ukraine (11-2024, R Gates on Putin)
Robert Gates Thinks Joe Biden Hasn't Stopped Being Wrong for 40 Years - The Atlantic
"I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says of Vice President Joe Biden in his new book coming out later this month.
Truth About Willie Brown and Kamala Harris, and How She Got Her Political Start, w/ Charlie Spiering (8-2024)
Why We Lost - Brianna Wu (11-14)
Michael Sandel on Trump’s Win Says About American Soc | Amanpour (11-16)
Mark Lilla，The Once and Future Liberal – After Identity Politics, HarperCollins, 2017
Comments