Leadership

Conrad Black in National Review provides an excellent evaluation of FDR's strategies and tactics dealing with the crises this country faced eighty years ago, as contasted with current approaches. His point how FDR's reputation has suffered more damage at the hands of historians that supposedly shared his ideology is also worth pondering.

If nothing else, read the third paragraph from the end.

The two greatest presidents of the last century were FDR and Ronaldus Maximus (with the other Roosevelt not far behind) -- not on the bases of politics, programs, or policies, but because of consistent and strong leadership in the face of unprecedented challenges, and, in both cases, with tenures following periods of weak and/or crippled leadership in the Oval Office. Is it any wonder that the latter greatly admired the former and quoted him often, or that many fair-minded conservatives (both those who lived through the 1930's and those, like Black, who have actually studied it), rate FDR very high in spite of ideological differences? (Differences, which Black points out, were not nearly as extreme as Schlessinger et al might lead us to believe).

Leadership is not a title or an office -- it is the ability to build broad support without compromising basic principles, carry out those policies effectively, change them when necessary, and admit error if it doesn't work. Read the article.