STATING QUALITY: THE TRAITS, ATTRIBUTES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF STATESMEN AND PSEUDO-STATESMEN

Matt White

November 4, 2014

Liberty University PPOG 504 – Leadership, Statesmanship, and Governance

Defining Statesmanship

            A true statesman is a rare breed, but when one emerges, history is changed for the better. Every enterprise has its leaders, but not all those with strong leadership skills can be considered statesmen. Both leaders and statesmen possess similar traits that attract and affect a followership. Statesmen and the most effective of leaders relate to the public, through personality and charm and convincing rhetoric. Many political leaders follow the polls and aim to give the people what they want in exchange for votes, oftentimes promising immediate benefit over long-term stability. In contrast, a statesman is a visionary, looking to improve upon the future for long-term benefit, sometimes at the risk of popularity and security.[1] Rather than the calculated realpolitik of self-interest, a statesman strives for policy based on firm moral principle.[2]

Unlike many leaders, a Christian statesman does not cherish their own position of power and seek human recognition over using their God-granted talents to serve the Lord.[3] The statesman recognizes that their power comes from God and humbly strives to fulfil their role.[4] Importantly, the statesman always has a Divinely-sanctioned greater good at the center of what they aim to achieve through their leadership, rather than any humanistic purpose.

Attributes of Statesmanship

            A statesman is not simply some quixotic character with noble yet unrealistic existential aspirations. One mark of a statesman is that they produce tangible results through measureable personality traits and skills. A statesman, in general, has strong interpersonal skill and emphasizes the relationship with those that follow. A humble attitude brings popularity, yet this never degenerates into conceit. Statesmen generally possess strong oratorical skill, yet uses rhetorical power to uplift the masses to a higher moral plane. Statesmen have their minds on the eternal, but know how to live in the real world and work best within the system to produce results. The following analysis of specific decisions and actions of statesmen and the resulting outcomes can be used to analyze specific empirical traits of successful statesmanship.

Compare and Contrast

Sometimes, leaders with pure Godly intentions fail to carry out their endeavors as statesmen. In 1861, famed explorer and initial Republican presidential candidate John C. Frémont was given military command of the Department of the West. Missouri was a fractured state, officially in the Union but with representation in the Confederacy. After declaring martial law, Frémont, a staunch abolitionist, declared emancipation of all slaves in the state.[5] It was an edict that only further alienated the state’s two factions. Not only was it a divisive decision among the population, Frémont had no authority. Lincoln nullified the decree in attempt to reunite, not further divide the nation. A true statesman knows when it is necessary to exceed their own authority, and when to carry out their superior’s orders if all for the same greater good.

The abolition of slavery or of the slave trade were both goals of John C. Frémont and William Wilberforce, however, Wilberforce was successful. In contrast to Frémont, Wilberforce worked within the existing framework of Parliament to abolish the slave trade within the British Empire. Wilberforce was a respected and powerful member of the House of Commons, yet never exceeded his authority or took advantage of his personal relationship with Prime Minister Pitt to promote his abolitionist agenda outside of protocol.[6] It was a long arduous struggle, but through 20 years of persistence and patience, the slave trade was abolished in 1806 with Wilberforce as the cause’s leading statesman.[7]

The Marquis de Lafayette was an idealistic leader, commissioned a major general American Army at age nineteen[8] after independently volunteering to fight for the ideals of freedom and democracy. Though a wealthy aristocrat, Lafayette was a champion of peasant’s rights in France. During the initial uprising of the French Revolution, Lafayette and fellow idealistic democrat Jefferson penned the initial draft of the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,” though it was revised with a humanistic tone. [9] Lafayette was appointed as the initial military leader of Paris by the proletariat, who saw them as the people’s champion. He lost support though when attempting to control the mob and cease the Jacobin brutality, and had to flee to keep his head, though he eventually ended up imprisoned in Austria.[10]

Lafayette’s case was one where he was leader and statesman of liberty, though unlike his success with the American Revolution, this was not God-centered. The French National Assembly, called by Louis XVI, consisted of the Three Estates, the nobility and aristocracy, the Roman Catholic Clergy, which was the Second Estate, and the proletariat Third Estate. Each estate had a single vote, though the Third Estate had 96% of the population.[11] Up until that point, the religion of the French peasants consisted of listening to and obeying the decrees of their local priests instead of one that emphasized a relationship with God.  The peasants saw the clergy, who wielded both spiritual and political power, as a cause of their oppression. The riotous mobs robbed and imprisoned the clergy alongside the aristocracy.[12] To succeed as a true effective statesman, the cause a leader is fighting for must have Divine sanction. The bloodthirsty humanists of the French Revolution rejected God, so God rejected their cause.

Patrick Henry, similar to Lafayette, also fought to bring the greater good of liberty and democracy to the American colonies. However, Henry had total faith that American liberty was Divine will, as liberty is one of the inalienable sacred rights that God bestows upon man. Henry’s mistrust in absolute power was based on the Christian principle that all men are sinners, and no individual leader could be trusted with total political authority. And as God’s law was above all men, no law should contradict God’s word and hence, no ruler can place himself above the law. [13] Henry believed that democracy could not thrive in America without a devout and moral population,[14] which was strong in Puritan roots compared with the humanists and atheists of the French Revolution. Both were statesmen of freedom, but where Lafayette failed in France, Henry succeeded because Henry kept his heart and mind rooted in Biblical principle.

Patrick Henry was blessed with oratorical skill that was able to inspire a nation to fight for a just and Divine cause. Samuel Adams was a fiery speaker, but in contrast, Adams used his skill to incite the mobs rather than inspire. In the decade leading up to Bunker Hill, Bostonians led in part by Adams defied British atrocities such as the Stamp Act of 1765 by destroying the home of stamp distributor Andrew Oliver and burning his effigy.[15] Even though for legit causes, inspiring such violence and looting marked Adam’s rhetorical impact. The day in 1772 when the British closed the Port of Boston, Virginia, led by Patrick Henry, showed unity with Massachusetts’s cause not by calling for violent insurrection, but by establishing a day of prayer and fasting.[16]

Statesmanship Impact

            The measure of a statesman’s success is by the profound and positive impact the statesman has on his followers, and by producing tangible results towards a greater good. Statesmen are capable of inspiring the masses towards achieving the ideal and virtuous goals at the center of the statesmen’s campaign. Ronald Reagan is an example of a statesman who through his tenacity, idealism, and rhetoric, was able to influence not just Americans, but the world towards the goal of the downfall of communism. As Henry Kissinger described his character, “Reagan liberated his people’s spirit by tapping reservoirs of initiative and self-confidence…”[17]  Avoiding a destructive war, Reagan’s statesmanship effected the redrawing of global political boundaries.

            Reagan’s faith in democracy and belief in the evils of communism was at the center of his foreign policy. Reagan persisted with the notions of right and wrong rather than the realpolitik of national interest. American politicians in the previous decade enforced a policy of détente, simply containing the threat of Soviet expansionism, which simply prolonged the arms race and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. Reagan rejected this philosophy outright when he labeled the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire.”[18] Unlike through détente and containment, Reagan’s goal was victory. Yet, Reagan never lost faith that Soviet leaders would see the light and was confident in Soviet conversion to democracy through unwavering resolve and constant confrontation.[19]

            A prime example of Reagan’s statesmanship is his speech at the Brandenburg Gate, demanding, “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”[20] Through rhetorical resolve, Reagan’s statesmanship produced tangible results. His message resonated throughout the globe, and two years later, the Berlin Wall was torn down.[21]

            Reagan saw a growing restlessness in the Communist Bloc, and resolved to exploit that to hasten the spread of the principles of democracy.[22] Gorbachev never wished to preside over the fall of the Soviet Union, but wanted to spread communism and make it more acceptable.[23] However, Gorbachev diluted the Marxist ideology by introducing glasnost and perestroika, political liberalization and economic reform, in attempt to enhance Soviet prestige.[24] Gorbachev strayed from fundamental communist principle, and that allowed the public to speak out and see Reagan’s shining democratic beacon. In a lack of statesmanship, believing in a philosophy that suppressed God-given rights and then straying from that principle, was Gorbachev’s downfall and led to the destruction of the Soviet Union.

Summary

            The Bible warns us of false prophets, pseudo-statesmen capable of enthralling the public and convincing them of the rightness of evil. God warns us to be on the lookout of certain characteristics, the definition of anti-statesmanship. These false-prophets serve “…their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people.”[25] “They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord…In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.”[26] “For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity…”[27] “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”[28] The world is full of such politicians, who in attempt to preserve their own power, strive to give the public what it wants in lieu of what God wants for the public.

            Through the examples of William Wilberforce, Patrick Henry, and Ronald Reagan, the traits and characteristics of true statesmanship are illuminated. The true statesman knows how to enact change by knowing when and how to work within the system. Statesmen inspire the public towards believing in a greater cause. This inspiration comes through superior rhetorical skill and the ability to relate to the general public. Statesmen have lasting public impact through unwavering resolve towards the greater good, a true belief, and not phony political maneuvering. Most importantly, instead of power grabbing and self-interest, a statesman maintains at the core of their vision a God-sanctioned greater good.

References

Andress, David. The Terror: The Merciless War for Freedom in Revolutionary France. New York: FSG, 2005.

Cannon, Lou. President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime. 1990. Reprint, New York: Public Affairs, 2000.

Fischer, Kahlib J. PhD. “Leadership and Statesmanship:  An Introduction,” Liberty University. 2012. Accessed October 16, 2014. http://learn.liberty.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4921054-dt-content-rid-33752469_1/courses/PPOG504_D01_201440/Leadership%20and%20Statesmanship.pdf

Goodwin, Doris Kearns. Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005.

Hayward, Steven F. Greatness: Reagan, Churchill & the Making of Extraordinary Leaders. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2005.

Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York: Touchstone, 1994.

Newell, Terry. Statesmanship, Character, and Leadership in America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Stein, Jay W. “Isaiah and Statesmanship.” 27 Journal of Church and State no. 97 (1985). Accessed October 16, 2014. http://learn.liberty.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4921053-dt-content-rid-33752419_1/courses/PPOG504_D01_201440/MOD%206-Isaiah%20and%20Statesmanship.pdf

Unger, Harlow Giles. American Tempest: How the Boston Tea Party Sparked a Revolution. Philadelphia: De Capo Press, 2011.

Unger, Harlow Giles. Lafayette. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

Vaughan, David J. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry. Nashville: Cumberland House, 1997.

Vaughan, David J. Statesman and Saint: The Principled Politics of William Wilberforce. Nashville: Cumberland House, 2002.