Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Do Presidents Make History or Does History Make Presidents?
George Friedman of Stratfor Strategic Forcasting, an influential authority on intelligence and international politics, has written an important piece titled "Foreign Policy and the President's Irrelevance." At a time when America is going through the lengthy process of choosing its next president, Friedman asked the question of whether presidents make history or history makes presidents.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The interesting destiny play on Presidents maybe true in part, which makes them seem like legacy gamblers, but the inevitability of certain choices may liberalize itself if the President didn't think so much about self-preservation. It is the hope of many an idealist, that a world leader would do what he/she believes is right and not necessarily what they are forced into...but then again, we are not in an ideal setting. Ethics and morality differ from person to person and the Religious understanding of God's directions leave us in a dizzying struggle. Why would anyone want to be President?
While no leader assumes power with a clean slate of a situation, to think that a President Gore would have invaded Iraq at the same time, in the same way as our current administration seems ludicrous.
Also, I feel the similarity of the presidential candidates positions is linked more to what will get them elected (conventional wisdom) than how they will handle the inevitable unplanned change of circumstances.
Seth is probably right that a Gore presidency would not have taken on Iran. On jfong's raising the question of politics and morality, an interesting book to look at would be Reinhold Neibuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society. Niebuhr was arguably one of the greatest mainline Protestant theologians of the twentieth century.
Post a Comment