Warriors, rebels and saints

Warriors rebels and saints – The book is valuable assessment of political leadership. The author poses the oldest question whether leaders make history or the historical moment makes the leader. The answer is both. To argue his case, the author looks at leaders under different conditions: in times of crisis (Herbert Hoover, Huey Long, and Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression); under tyranny (the French resistance during the Vichy regime); when past decisions severely constrain present choices (the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki); when leadership fails (Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War); and under colonial and authoritarian regimes (Algeria’s war for independence). The author casts suffragist movement leaders Carrie Chapman Catt and Alice Paul as successes in the face of entrenched power, and he uses Martin Luther King Jr. to illustrate the claim that a leader has to leave a legacy. Although the author excels at providing historical context, he offers little about the “the art of leadership.” His focus is the consequences of leadership—good leaders “do not even need to be warriors, rebels, or saints. In our current condition, it may be enough that they simply want to help the public”—and not how leaders achieve their goals. That Temkin’s interest is confined to the politically famous—leaving aside university presidents, corporate heads, labour leaders and directors of charitable organizations—further limits his perspective. The book’s title is also problematic. The author is never explicit about why the categories of fighting for a noble cause, overcoming oppression, and sacrificing oneself to the greater good are helpful for distinguishing among leaders and understanding leadership. In fact, he attests that the “best” leaders are all three—e.g., the suffragists were “committed warriors,” “determined rebels,” and “reluctant saints.” The Weekender