Heroic Leadership: A destestable doctrine

In a coincidence, my reading of the third book in Richard Slotkin's trilogy examining the Myth of the Frontier in American History (I recommend this one) lead me to search for a Schlesinger 1960s essay “On Heroic Leadership and the Dilemma of Strong Men and Weak People.” I could not locate it, but an interesting reference can be found at (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-politics-of-hope--by-arthur-schlesinger-jr--3751?page=all)

This essay does a nice job of contextualizing our current president in the tradition of the imperial presidency.

The image of the Latin American caudillo or jefe is a familiar one, and perhaps we are seeing an extension of that creature (that began with Lincoln) in our current president.

The author of the first article makes a point that clarifies the dark side of the utopian longing that is the foundation for the acceptance of a caudillo (or a ward style politician skilled at logrolling and rent seeking).

Finally, I wish to comment on Mr. Schlesinger's leading essay which carries the pretentious title “On Heroic Leadership and the Dilemma of Strong Men and Weak People.” This is an important essay, not because it says anything important, but because it seems to express the ideology which is now dominant among the President's intellectuals in Washington. Here Mr. Schlesinger calls for a reconstitution of democratic theory, since “maintained in rigid purity, it has been an abundant source of trouble.” The citizen in a democracy, he says, simply cannot play the role in which classical democratic theory has cast him. This has led to political estrangement and frustration. Hence, Mr. Schlesinger argues, we need to rely on heroic leadership, we need to divest ourselves of our instinctive distrust of such leadership if the democratic polity is not to flounder in a sea of mass emotions. This, I submit, is a detestable doctrine.