Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No Genius in Sight
1943 Casablanca Conference (l-r): Giraud, Roosevelt, de Gaulle, and Churchill.
Peggy Noonan nailed our collective international crises in her WSJ column this weekend. She states that we live in a time where there seem to be no exceptional people — what she calls “genius clusters” — on the international level (never mind in our own country) to step-up to the plate and lead us forward.
The leaders of the world aren’t a very impressive group right now. There’s a sense with some of them of playing out a historical or cultural string, that they’re placeholders in some way. Many are young, yet so much around them feels tired. […] There was a small genius cluster in World War II—FDR, Churchill, de Gaulle. I should note I’m speaking of different kinds of political genius. There was a genius cluster in the 1980s— John Paul II, Reagan, Thatcher, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Lee Kuan Yew in his last decade of leadership in Singapore. The military genius cluster of World War II—Marshall, Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery, Patton, MacArthur, Nimitz, Bull Halsey, Stilwell—almost rivaled that of the Civil War—Grant, Lee, Stonewall, Sherman, Sheridan, Longstreet.
She also makes a critical point regarding the times we live in:
Obviously genius clusters require deep crises, otherwise their gifts are not revealed. Historic figures need historic circumstances. Also members of genius clusters tend to pursue shared goals.
The world is in one huge mess. What will need to happen for great men and women to emerge and step forward? Any thoughts about who is waiting in the wings?
Published in General
The only two choices are Roosevelt and Reagan.
Results are the best cite.
Roosevelt won WWII. Roosevelt failed to end the Great Depression (and is generally considered to have prolonged it). It ended only after he became too involved running WWII to continue mucking up the economy.
Reagan won the Cold War – a war we were losing in 1979-80 (many elites were talking about how to best make accommodation with the Soviet Union when they did inevitably win). Reagan not only turned that around, the Soviet Union ceased to exist within a year of his leaving office, and the US was as dominant in 1991 as it had been in 1946. Further, Reagan completely turned the economy around, creating a boom which lasted 25 years.
Seawriter
Actually, I was wondering about the “in 1989 most people considered somewhere in the bottom half”.
With particular emphasis on the word “most”.
Yes, this is a great example of how things work.
I think you are going too far in this. Republicans want politicians to be servants and not the masters. They don’t hate politics and politicians so much as they want them to stay in their place. But, this is hard to do without someone minding the store and no one wants to be a watchdog.
We also need to reduce the size of government so the powers that are wielded aren’t so intrusive.
Regarding career politicians, I think you are right that Republicans should just admit that this is what they want if it’s really what they want.
Good question. There are genius clusters, sometimes genius, like the physicists interacting with Einstein, or just mature, seasoned leaders with relevant insight such as George Shultz Kissinger and Baker. The founders were such a cluster, the Austrian economists around Hayek and Mises, Shumpeter, Haberler, et al or the group of conservationists in the 50’s who gave us all of the basic evironmental legislation before the modern corrupt and leftist enviornmental movement got going. Around Truman we had Marshall, Acheson, George Kennan and a few other FSO’s and career military who had survived the war. There are also toxic clusters, the best and the brightest around Kennedy, FDR’s leftist cabal, the Keynesian economist John K Galbraith, Samuelson, and all the rest who wrote the text books and conquered econ departments. Their damage keeps on giving. Does our corrupt mob rule Democracy quash the good clusters? We’ll see. A key to the cluster is interaction with each other. We do that more now than ever and we have a cluster of very smart capable conservative politicians, some were candidates and most are young, and it is encouraging. But the cluster f called the media and academia is bigger and more toxic than ever. But I have the hope that they have become so absurd that regular folks are taking notice.
A couple of thoughts, Susan, none as erudite as Seawriter’s et al:
First, that the “cluster of greatness” around WW2 might as well include Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, who pulled off some pretty daring and impressive political feats against the odds and in the face of at least as much skepticism and condescension as any of the good guys listed ever faced. If we’re counting great military leaders some of the Axis generals and admirals performed spectacularly.
This is not to suggest moral equivalency (Lord knows!) but it gives an indication of what it is that happens when a Great Group turns up. There’s talent, obviously, and there is the circumstance that talent is fitted to and capable of exploiting. The circumstance isn’t self-created, so there’s luck.
Among other things, a crisis sufficiently severe will make followers inclined to overlook a leader’s flaws that might, in less exciting times, appear wholly disqualifying (Churchill’s depression, Stalin’s predilection for homicide and so on).
An external enemy is a —perhaps the—quintessential crisis and most adhesive social glue, so not only does the threat of war often create great leaders, it creates great people (the plucky Brits enduring the Blitz, Rosie the Riveter stepping up to built tanks and planes for her fighting brothers). As Jonah Goldberg points out, this is why “moral equivalent of war” and “war on _____” language gets used so often by those who would be great.
Wasn’t there some meme going around about how Bill Clinton regretted that there hadn’t been a really, really big crisis on his watch, so that he could have been a really Great President? (Blecchh).
“Genius” tends to overstate the role of intellect. Judgment, character, temperament and luck seem more relevant to leadership in times of crisis. In the Civil War and WWII, the USA had the luxury of time to shuffle through commanders less up to the task and find those that were. And George Washington was no military genius but the sheer force of his character and integrity kept the war effort alive. Lincoln’s moral vision despite horrific political pressures preserved the union.
I think that there is some irony in Noonan’s approach: The more we look to intellect instead of character, experience and judgment, the more likely we will get leaders unsuited to the task and the longer we must wait for their arrival. The more academically credentialed, the less likely someone is to think outside the box and recognize when old paradigms no longer work. People like Obama and Clinton are best suited to abuse domestic power to punish critics and to address issues in the existing ways prescribed by the chattering class (i.e., more “programs”). The courage to abandon those formulas and to face the nation’s real enemies requires a level of character they both conspicuously lack.
Noonan clearly understands we lack leaders who accept the need for painful changes and for taking risks on behalf of principle even at great personal cost. It is unfortunate that character is now so rare and exotic we call it “genius” as if it were an unexpected gift.
I so agree, OB.Over and over again, through the years, we’ve heard Democrats celebrate intellect. That got us Jimmy Carter. In addition to character, I’d point to courage and wisdom. Thanks.
Great post Susan. There is always greatness and genius along with failure, foolishness in every generation. I agree with most posters they seem to be revealed during times of distress. I read all the posts and noticed that Eisenhower was left off the list – I think he was a genius (and yes, maybe a ‘squish’ in certain things) but so was General Marshall who promoted him over I believe 56 others in line at that time (almost unimaginable to think of that happening today).
As to people with us now? Well look within the field of candidates that were ‘discarded’ this year – there really were some good ones (Perry, Cruz, Walker, Jindal, and yes – even Marco!).
There is genius in American industry. I realize they’re Lefties but Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk are geniuses. On the ‘Right’ I don’t believe they are as well known because they are forced in the shadows: Peter Theil (sp?)- PayPal, forgive for forgetting his name but the guy that was forced out of Mozilla, here on Ricochet you’ve got several from medicine, industry and the military.
The most critical thing (short of war and economic cataclysm) is shaking things up enough to get these people in positions to work their genius – but we have to win to get them in position.
Thanks, WiCon. I hope that some of those who ran in the Republican primaries will show up as part of a genius cluster. There were so many great people of potential.
Susan,
I thank you for bringing this to our attention. Peggy Noonan is certainly asking the right question. If we don’t step back and ask ourselves what we are looking for in a leader we will be driven by unconscious forces and it will end badly.
However, as far as an answer to the question, I think Seawriter is on the ball.
Regards,
Jim
I agree with Seawriter, yet there’s a desperate part of me that wishes we could identify potential greatness early–see attributes in a person that might lead them to be excellent leaders in dire times. We are certainly in dire times now. But I certainly don’t wish for a major crisis for a person to emerge. I fear, however, that is not far off, and it will be in the form of terrorism.
“Obviously genius clusters require deep crises, otherwise their gifts are not revealed. Historic figures need historic circumstances.”
This may be true, but I think in times of crisis, “placeholders” cannot be tolerated. The price is too high. Thus exceptional people are put in the right places. Only in a crisis are skill, and knowledge valued more than political connections.
…
This is really helpful, OB—hadn’t thought of it, but you’re right. The longer one spends in academia getting credentialed, the more specialized one’s mind tends to gets. Among other things, it means you spend even more time than usual locked into a bubble with people who very closely share your worldview and interests, and remain unexposed to people who look at the world in a completely different way.
Churchill (my favorite, if that isn’t obvious) was a generalist not a specialist, and definitely not an academic. Interesting.
It isn’t always their intelligence, but what kind of intelligence they have. Great crises between nations require strategic intelligence; the awareness that if they do X the opponent will respond with Y. Part of strategic intelligence is the recognition of the consequences.
I can’t help but go back to three Obama actions: ObamaCare, pulling out of Iraq, and the Iran nuclear deal. All three were spectacularly non-strategic; they were all done from a rigid, static, ideological perspective. We see the results. ObamaCare addressed one problem (the uninsured) but created multiple death spirals elsewhere; insurers are pulling out, the price is going up, and the consequences may have been unintended by Obama but were obvious to everyone else. Same with pulling out of Iraq; Obama was told, repeatedly, what would happen if the US pulled out – Obama didn’t care because it made a good selling point to his domestic allies. The Iran deal is just a more dangerous repeat of the same pattern.
I have no doubt that Obama is intelligent; but he hasn’t got a strategic bone in his body. He’s 100% liberal ideologue.
We can look at any of his executive orders to validate your comment, KC.
Isn’t it a good thing that there are now so many career opportunities for geniuses that they don’t have to go into politics?
Genius is not required for good government. Honesty is a far more important trait.
I’ll take an honest incompetent over a dishonest genius any day of the week.
Oh, that would be a tough choice for me! Honesty is at the top of my list of values, but incompetency??
This is important. I would only add that what is not emphasized enough is decisiveness and a good decision making process. This latter point is really only possible to have in someone who is experienced with making lots of (generally good) decisions and having learned how to make up one’s mind. There is a gut instinct that needs to be coaxed from within and going up against difficult obstacles and failing will tell you a lot of what gut instinct to avoid. The problem with academics is that they are too insulated from the education afforded by bad decisions and they often are people who have chosen their profession to avoid the risk of them.
Intellectuals tend to be perfectionists and not optimizers. Perfection takes time. Emergencies are defined by lack of time. And decisions in emergency situations proceed directly from the gut (intuition and grit and experience).
An honest incompetent cannot get good things done.
A dishonest genius is extraordinarily successful at getting terrible things done.
There is no contest.
I agree with all you’ve said except that striving for perfection is a futile goal to pursue–excellence can be a goal maybe, but not perfection. And excellence can emerge from a process as well as the ultimate goal–and is much less important in an emergency.
Genius is the wrong word. Greatness is better.
The right man (person) at the right time for the right job. That is what Noonan is looking for. We don’t even have a Jimmy Stewart let alone a Churchill or Grant.
No–we have Dumb and Dumber . . .
I’m inclined to believe that the circumstances, not the individuals, create the legacy of greatness among political and military leaders and the perception of “clusters.”
Without a serious crisis, there is little opportunity for genius or greatness to leave a lasting mark. Thus, in recent history, there appear to be “clusters” around the American and French Revolutions, the American Civil War, WWII, and (to a lesser degree) the collapse of Communism.
WWI and the Great Depression were crises of similar magnitude, but: (1) as to WWI, the result was inconclusive, and (2) as to the Depression, it wasn’t really solved and it is difficult to consider it in isolation from WWII.
As to wars in particular, I’ve studied this in some detail, and my conclusion is that wars are won by perseverance despite numerous errors and misjudgments. Or, in fairness, decisions that appear to be errors and misjudgments in retrospect.
But when things work out favorably in the end, the leaders inevitably end up looking like a “cluster of geniuses.”
Except there were many who recognized the Thatcher/Reagan/Pope John Paul II cluster in the early 1980s well before the Soviet Union fell. Although I suppose you could re-center the crisis of the “collapse of Communism” as a crisis of the economic political situation of the entire 1970s/1980s.
Great points all.
But, I don’t think these people are any less geniuses just because it took a war to reveal it to us. Gold undiscovered deep in the ground is still gold when found. These were great men and women. Full Stop.
I consider the entire Cold War a “crisis” in this analysis, pretty much from 1946 through 1990.
I think Ms. Noonan is incorrect. We have plenty of “clusters”. Unfortunately for our country in its present state, the problem is the word appropriately paired with “cluster” is NOT “genius”. (Hopefully the dreaded CoC violation has been avoided.;) )
<cynicism always on>