Who were the best leaders?
Two lists of Top Tens
In his new short life of F.D. Roosevelt, the late Roy Jenkins put him in the top three to have held the US presidency, alongside Washington and Lincoln. The last two certainly belong there. Washington created the American federal government virtually from scratch, just as earlier he had created the American army. And, as I recently discovered in writing a short life of him, his influence on the constitution, though not reflected in the documents, was second to none. As for Lincoln, his life is an epic of honesty and courage, the most important qualities of leadership.
But Roosevelt? I rate him less highly than his distant Republican cousin, Theodore, a tree man of action. FDR was the first of the modern spinners, a man who used the media and his office to cast an optimistic glow upon grim events which he proved powerless to alter much. He made people feel good, or at any rate marginally better; he mesmerised the press; he turned the radio into a magic box; and he casts a spell even on historians who were not born when he was in his prime. He did not end the great slump, which had a new phase of doom in his second term. The first time Wall Street recovered its 1929 level was on 1 September 1939, when the outbreak of the second world war turned America into 'the arsenal of democracy'. That was not his doing. He always reacted to events, instead of taking them by the scruff of their necks like a real leader. It was Japan and Germany, in turn, that made war on America, a reluctant combatant under FDR's nervous guidance. Then, in 1944-45, his near-fatal misjudgment of Stalin and his regime meant we came close to losing the Cold War before it had even started. We were saved by Harry Truman, a man FDR underrated and picked as his running mate out of inertia and ignorance. Truman turned out to be an unconsciously inspired choice, one of the great presidents.
There is a tendency, in my view, to overrate the early holders of the office. John Adams was a sad declension after Washington, at home and abroad; Jefferson and Madison got America into a disastrous league with France and the fratricidal war of 1812. Monroe was a nonentity, John Quincy Adams a cantankerous, grudging sort of fellow, lacking magnanimity, an important presidential quality. Andrew Jackson was the first big figure to emerge since Washington, who adumbrated Lincoln's determination to put the Union before all else, and Martin van Buren followed
in his steps. Then came six presidents few know anything about, though James K. Polk, the 11th holder of the office, has a strong claim to be numbered among the greats for his resolute pursuit of the 'manifest destiny' policy. He added more territory to the US, thanks to his Oregon settlement and the Mexican war, than any other president except Jefferson (and his Louisiana Purchase was a piece of luck, a consequence of Napoleon's ignorance).
Of the men between Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, it is hard to point to any above the mediocre. Grover Cleveland was the best — the only president to make a comeback, and a man who consistently put the national interest before party ideology. `TR' was a marvel, a decent, good and warm-hearted man as well as a visionary who got things done. He is my favourite, I admit it. I also like the pre-war Woodrow Wilson, whose legislative record, while peacetime president, is hard to beat. After that, however, his decline was horrible. Harding was unlucky, and his faults were exaggerated. He was the last president to open the White House front door himself. Calvin Coolidge was another great president, who presided over one of the most prosperous eras in American history and who had the good sense and judgment not to seek another term. A collection of his few brief but wise sayings should be on every president's desk. Hoover specialised in gloom — a fatal propensity — just as Jack Kennedy specialised in verbal optimism and media manipulation, dying just before his foolish chickens came home to roost. LBJ tried hard, but events were against him. The best of the post-war presidents were Eisenhower and Reagan. both sneered at by the academic and media pundits, but both of whom led their country during periods of greatness. I rate Nixon highly because he laid the foundations of America's modern and highly successful China policy, which is still bringing in the dividends. Clinton carried the White House into the depths of shame and degradation and gave an eight-year demonstration that a leader with charm and nothing else is a menace. So my top ten US presidents are: Washington, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Reagan, Jackson, Polk, Coolidge, Eisenhower, Truman and Wilson.
Conducting a similar exercise among British prime ministers is more difficult, for they have often been frustrated by their lack of constitutional power. Thus William Pitt the Younger must stand high on the list anyway, but would certainly be higher if the obstinacy, stupidity and perfidy of George III had not messed up his Irish policy and made sure that the Act of Union was a long-term failure. A high place must go to Sir Robert Walpole because his long tenure of power, marked by a love of peace, domestic wisdom and genial common sense, ensured that Britain moved from an era when violence and constitutional upheaval were normal methods of changing the government into one where political solutions were seen not just as the norm but inevitable. This was one of the most important and felicitous changes in English history and must be accounted his work. I used to rate very highly Sir Robert Peel because he was an absolute master of all the machinery of government and steered the country through turbulent waters into calm ones without breaking any heads. These days I am more critical. Peel was detested by some because he was thought to have broken his word and reversed fundamental policies once too often while staying in office. In an age when almost all professional politicians are deeply distrusted by the public, whatever their party, I now put a higher premium on the need for trust.
In the same spirit of using modern instances to guide my judgment, I now downgrade W.E. Gladstone somewhat. I used to admire his courage for doing what was thought right regardless of the risks and public opinion. Now, after a decade of meretricious meddling by Labour ministers or pseudo-Tories like John Major, I put the propensity to do little or nothing, rather than something, high on my list of desirable characteristics. That gives an upward push to Palmerston (on home affairs), to Disraeli, who rightly preferred theatricals to fundamental changes, and above all to Salisbury, who was all for doing nothing at all if possible. It works in favour of Baldwin as opposed to Churchill and Lloyd George, both activists, at home and abroad.
On the other hand, there are times when the world beyond our shores leaves us no choice, and then we need such warlike men of action. In a highly competitive world, changes are sometimes rendered essential at home too. I have just been studying figures showing the evolution of the British and German economies over the last 40 years. The relative transformation has been enormous and is the work, on our side, almost entirely of one person, Margaret Thatcher. So here is my list of Britain's top ten premiers: Sir Robert Walpole, Churchill, Mrs Thatcher, Salisbury, Lloyd George, Palmerston. Pitt the Younger, Baldwin, Disraeli, Gladstone.
Previous page
