Which of history’s political leaders interests you the most and why?
This is a subject that I have afforded little thought since
college. I was focused on work and family almost exclusively for 47 years.
Certainly, the political figures over the past ten years do not warrant my
interest as much as I enjoyed how Trump drove liberals into a mouth-frothing
frenzy. Obama was and is a con man, and Biden, according to Hillary and Barack,
a liar and today should have been in a rest home rather than the Oval Office.
There have been several political leaders that elicited a significant
amount of my time studying (before I embarked on making a living and rearing a
family) because they faced “interesting times” with challenging dilemmas. There
were some political figures I studied more than course requirements because
their personalities were impactful in ways that transcend time. Finally, there
was a political leader whose focus on philosophy had a lasting “interest” for
me.
Lincoln was an interesting common man with uncommon good sense. He was not an
abolitionist but was forced to preside over a civil war which at first glance
appeared to be caused by the differing attitudes towards slavery. I was amazed
in college when I began to read material produced at the time he lived. When
running for President in a speech in the South, Lincoln said in essence, “Where
there are two races of people they cannot live equally. I, for one, prefer the
white race.” Even a Trump speech could not have caused more of an uproar in
today’s world. But in Lincoln’s world the people in New York, Pennsylvania and
Massachusetts never knew Lincoln had said any such thing.
The prospects of a divided United States honed an ordinary, quick-witted,
politician into a statesman. He was forced to exhibit strong leadership and
guide the resistance to secession with imposing moral force both of word and
deed. I do not think Lincoln had the intellect of a Thomas Jefferson or an
Alexander Hamilton, but when the occasion cried out for greatness, he rose to
provide it. Despite all the clamoring among many of today’s Americans, Abraham
Lincoln was a hero and deserves to be remembered as such.
Winston Churchill had a giant intellect and an ego to equal it. However, I
believe that, but for World War II, history would merely have remembered him
for some excellent writing and an occasional great speech. Even today, I look
back at the relentless bombing the English people endured in the early days of
the war and shudder. The miracle of the people maintaining their spirit and
confidently working to resist the Nazi advances remains, for me, only possible
with the leadership of Churchill. So again, events of history made the
political animal a memorable hero. He has been worth all the hours that I have
spent reading about him and reading his works. To this day, I have not heard an
orator of his equal.
Harry Truman may have been even more interesting to me than Lincoln or
Churchill. A haberdashery salesman who viewed being President of the United
States like showing up for work but simply to do more than sell a hat. More
importantly, for the purpose of answering this question, Harry Truman faced a
decision that hopefully no other human being will again face – whether to
drop a nuclear bomb.
I had to give up the idea of being a Marine or Navy Seal because I knew I
could not point a rifle and shoot another human being. Thank God, this country
did not have me in the Oval Office pondering whether to allow as many as one
million American soldiers to die invading island after Japanese island or to
avoid that loss of life by dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. Truman was proved
correct that showing Japan a “test” to obtain their surrender would fail when
the horror of Hiroshima was insufficient to allow the Japanese leadership to
accept defeat without death as honorable. They forced Truman to drop another
bomb on Nagasaki four days later.
Truman was otherwise an ordinary politician, but one who was forced to face a
momentous decision never faced by another human being in history. I feel
confident the man from Missouri was haunted by the vision of thousands of women
and children who died because of his decision to save American lives. Some have
called his decision an evil one. I am not among them.
Speaking of evil, another political figure is interesting only because he was
able to lead an entire country down a path of pure evil. My father heard Hitler
speak during his liberty on a summer cruise when he was at Annapolis. He told
us that, while he did not understand a word of Hitler’s speech, it was
mesmerizing even to him. Certainly, it mesmerized enough Germans to unleash in
them an aspect of inhumanity within them.
The derangement of one politician drove the world down a path that killed
millions while inspiring heroism in many ordinary people and revealing a
deep-seeded ugliness in many others. I was never able to look at Hitler beyond
the ordinary course work in school. The result of his mania was too frightening
to explore. When human beings fall into an abyss so far from the love and
kindness that also dwells within the human race, I simply chose not to
try to understand why. It is the one time that I recall not developing an
insatiable curiosity about a famous political leader or theological idea.
Strangely perhaps, it was my curiosity about the wording of the First Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution that led me to explore more deeply the English period
of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. I think it was seventh grade when I first read
the Bill of Rights. At the time, I found it curious that the very first words
of the First Amendment read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof.”
The question in my mind was why the founding fathers had placed separation of
church and state ahead of freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or the
right to assemble in protest of government actions. The answer for me came from
two facts I had already observed.
When I attended an Episcopal Church with one set of my first cousins, the
first thing I noticed was the American Flag next to the pulpit. It was
noteworthy because in attending the Baptist Church with my family and a
Catholic Church with another set of first cousins, I had never seen an American
flag in the church. When I inquired of my uncle about the flag, he pointed out
that the Episcopal Church had originally been part of the Church of England
before the Revolution. Upon further inquiry, I was told that the Church of
England was the official church for the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the founding fathers had their roots in England and we had been an
English colony. Many had immigrated to the American colonies to escape
religious persecution. The creation of the Church of England had caused
substantial unrest in English history. Apparently, it was at the forefront of
the founding fathers’ minds that the new government they were creating could
never be allowed to make the mistake of creating a National Church or interfering
with the religious choices of its citizens.
This
led me to study the period in which England adopted a state-sponsored religion
– Henry VIII and his daughter, Elizabeth. I found Henry VIII to be interesting
on many levels, but the particular period that I studied was his battle with
the Pope to obtain an annulment from his first marriage to marry Anne Boleyn.
The refusal of the Catholic Church to allow the annulment, of course, led to
the creation of the Church of England. The tension caused by the break with the
Catholic Church was to bedevil the reign of Elizabeth, an even more interesting
character than her father. The decisions of these two political figures created
a lasting institution, but also laid the foundation for the very first of the
individual “rights” added to the Constitution years later by our founding
fathers.
Now, the most interesting political figure for me – Marcus
Aurelius. I first came across Marcus Aurelius when I was researching different
religions and the history surrounding their beginnings (10-15 years of age). I
mistakenly began to research “Stoicism” as a religion, which in reading the
Durant’s history surrounding it, developed in Greece and enhanced its following
when adopted by the Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius. I stopped my youthful
research pretty quickly when I realized that “stoicism” was a philosophic view
rather than a religious view.
On
the other hand, I was immediately attracted to Stoicism’s equating God to the
Universe or Nature. The Abraham religions – as I thought of Islam, Judaism, and
Christianity – all had a vision of a personal God. They all believed that
somehow humans – as opposed to elephants, tigers, dogs, giraffes, and hippos –
had been created in God’s image. Stoics saw ”God” as the totality of the cosmos
– in the stars, in the grass, among the colony of ants toiling away; in other
words, all of nature. As a youngster, I recall gravitating to that view over
some bearded, greying, wise old man watching over each one of us and passing
judgment on our actions or inactions. It allowed a release from guilt for so
often falling short of the mark.
I left it at that until I took a philosophy course at Harvard. Lo and behold,
Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations was on the mandatory reading
list. Aurelius had ruled the Roman Emperor for twenty years when he died
mysteriously in 180 AD. If you saw the movie Gladiator, the
screenwriter chose to have him die by the hands of his son and successor,
Commodus. In any event, Aurelius was less interested in politics and military
affairs than previous Roman Emperors. He was reportedly skilled in law and was
a prudent and just Emperor. Aurelius has been dubbed by historians as the last
of the “good Emperors of Rome.”
His love was philosophy
and his passion was the teachings of stoicism. Indeed, it is said that he did
not want to accept the position as Emperor but felt obligated in the end to do
so. This was hardly surprising since stoicism dictates adherence to duty
without complaint. I was drawn to his Meditations by the
following:
- The
greatest good comes from knowledge
- The
wise life is lived by following reason over nature
- Enthusiasm
for rhetoric will lead you astray
- Avoid
writing on speculative themes
- Avoid
moralizing texts
- Follow
where reason guides you without regard to pain or pleasure
I cannot
claim to have lived by these standards. Indeed, I found the teachings of Jesus
a better guide for life. However, even as a child I could not stand when people
firmly expressed an opinion and could not present a convincing argument in
support of that opinion. My mother became angry with me one time because I had
just argued vigorously in favor of something that she had heard me argue just
as vigorously for the opposite days before. I responded that I failed to
understand her anger. To believe in something, you must first marshal all the
arguments that you can against that belief. Only if it withstands that
onslaught is it worthy of being held as an opinion.
This
attitude served me well in my chosen profession. As quickly as possible at the
onset of a litigation, I worked hard to find the winning approach for my
opponent. It was only after I believed I had prepared the best case against my
client that I began building the defense that a jury and/or judge would hear in
a courtroom 3-5 years later. Marcus Aurelius’ emphasis on avoidance of
speculation and emphasis on knowledge lay at the heart of this approach. For
that I salute him in retrospect.
Post Views : 15