The Missing Statesmen

Where are the statesmen? we often hear asked. Questions such as this usually arise in troubled times. And most of us would agree these times qualify as troubled.

One theory is that statesmen [and here the word is used to include both genders] appear only in times of crisis--world wars and great depressions. The theory is worth exploring if for no other reason than for what it might reveal about us as a nation. In other words, do leaders have to exhibit extraordinary powers to become statesmen, and is our system designed to grant individuals extraordinary powers only in times of desperate needs?

There is certainly constitutional support for this theory, with our checks and balances system purposely designed to prevent concentration of power in a single individual. But one can be a statesman without being president. There have been some very large figures in both the Senate and the House throughout our history. Some military leaders have been considered statesmen --George Marshall, for example. Occasionally, diplomats, say George Kennan, have assumed the role of statesman.

For purposes of this discussion, let's consider the usual characteristics of statesmanship: a sense of history; distinguished achievements; ability to see farther ahead; perception and insight; a keen understanding of human nature; quiet self-assurance; unselfishness; large character; and, perhaps most of all, a sense of the national interest that rises above partisan politics.

Does anyone on the current scene come to mind? Among current leaders, of course, it is too soon to say. Because history alone can judge one's achievements. But current circumstances discourage statesmanship. Those circumstances would include especially the intense, constant, and insistent attention of the media, focused much more on flaws and shortcomings than on accomplishment. Few citizens of stature care to put themselves through what is casually called "scrutiny".

It should not require a crisis to create a statesman. Figures exhibiting the qualities I've suggested, and other you may suggest, can arise. It is worth wondering why they have not and why they do not. Perhaps in the answer to this question may lie some revealing shortcomings not only in our leaders but also in ourselves.

To comment, please visit Senator Hart's blog at www.mattersofprinciple.com/.

 

 

 

Follow Gary Hart on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gary__hart

Comments

[StevelK]

05:38 AM on 03/30/2010

I feel that many of the reasons are not very hidden, at all. Hart mentions the media, no doubt a large contributor to this phenomenon, but, undeniably, the role money plays in politics is the largest obstacle to our nation's ability to produce statesmen. I also wholeheartedly agree that the citizenry of this country at large are to blame, as well. Politicians would be less shortsighted if they weren't so generously rewarded for being so, and more farsighted if they weren't so often punished for it. Let's take a look at Bush 41 and Bush 43. 41 was able to see that deficits were a serious problem, so he did the responsible thing and rose taxes. In contrast, 43 began two wars and massively expanded entitlement spending with Medicare Part D, while taking no measures to pay for either, and instead cutting taxes. 41 was punished for his responsibility while 43 was rewarded for his brazen disregard for the consequences of his actions beyond his tenure.

The fact is that a democracy is only as good as it's citizens, and with statistics like the following, it's difficult to be optimistic about the future of our country.

-64% of Americans don't think humans are responsible for climate change.
-60% believe the story of Noah's arc actually happened.
-Only 39% believe in evolution.
etc.

Today's Americans are just too stupid to know what's good for them, or create an environment that encourages statesmanship, let alone one that abstains from discouraging it.

[realitytrumpsbull]

12:22 AM on 03/30/2010

Gary, you're going down in a hail of peanut shells, here, we don't need exalted 'statesmen' who govern from Upon High, so much as we need an informed, halfway-educated public that knows enough about what's going on in the country/in the world to make their vote count for a little something. Statesmen? We've got enough elected/appointed people to last us through FY 2050. What we also have is millions of people that couldn't tell you if it's left, or Tuesday, in terms of politics, because they just plain flat don't read, listen, or pay attention, and, why should they? For years, politics has been the domain of such 'statesmen', supposed all-powerful, all-knowing personages, essentially almost autocrats, and that's not what democracy is about. Besides, putting all your faith in statesmanship doesn't account for one thing, what happens when Dear Leader chokes on a chicken bone, and sallies forth solo into the Great Beyond? Well, too bad he/she didn't bother to train a replacement before leaving...democracy, in its' true sense, has sort of a redundant 'fail-over' feature, to where maybe it's more like the Borg: Resistance is futile, 'cause it's adaptive, and can compensate for the loss of one or more individuals. Group participation makes for a great state, and a great statesman remembers that they're just one teeny-tiny itty-bitty part of all that which has conferred whatever authority upon them. That's my view.

[larry278]

10:14 PM on 03/29/2010

There are times when the USA has a shortage, perhaps a total absence, of statesmen/women; they pop up, every once in a while. Frequently these unusual being are those who seem be the least likely to become statesmen/women according to CW. Often the working defination(sic?) of statesman/woman changes in response to ever changing world & domestic conditions.
To be trite: The only constant in the world is change; that goes double for the USA.

[research]

07:55 PM on 03/29/2010

Kucinich, Grayson, Dean, and much of the progressive caucus: These are the true founding father type liberal statesmen.

The problem is the DLC conservadems run the democratic party.

[MalleusMaleficarum]

03:39 PM on 03/29/2010

If there are any statesmen today they might include: Jimmy Carter; Barack Obama; George Mitchell - all American recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. They would be my nominees. Obama and Mitchell are grappling with the most difficult diplomatic problem on our planet - the Middle East. Nobody is yet addressing reining the US military-industrial complex.

[Ifeomamn]

03:05 PM on 03/29/2010

Former senator Hart, your piece is right on track. I suspect that you did not want your piece to be partisan. Well, that is fine. However, when there are conflicts and disagreement. There is only one set of truths. This where statesmen are dutifully needed and demanded. The current situation this nation finds itself was man made. Since the 30's, Fr. Charles Coughlin was a threat to our democratic republic, FDR and congress through legislative avenues were able to find a balance that kept the air wave safe from extremism. In the '80's, Reagan and the Dems tore down the barriers. What do we have today, lies and indoctrinations over the air waves, really unchallenged. Again in our banking system the same thing. Look where we are. So my only beef is that you need to spell out the problems and call them as you see them. GOPers are rendering this nation to spiral out of control. They are the ones to shout country first, and do anything but. They incite and say whatever, while MSM either tacitly flame with them or pretend they hear and see NO evil. Please call out Bush1&2 to speak up. This madness has got to stop. And please when Cheney and child say despicable things, please call them out. We all need a civil society. Thank you.