Comments on: The 4 Qualities of a True Statesman

By: Randy

Randy — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 23:55:55 +0000

A statesman’s moral compass points toward our Moral Lawgiver! President Ronald Reagan was possibly the best statesman in my lifetime. I love what he said. “If we ever forget we are a nation under God, then we will be a nation, gone under.”

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:24:55 +0000

Professor Fears is the man. He did a bunch of The Great Courses lectures, Life Lessons from the Great Books was well done. His lectures are fun, interesting, and inspiring.

By: Nelson Pecora

Nelson Pecora — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:15:15 +0000

Definitely both of the Roosevelts.

I would contend that Obama definitely seemed a statesman in 2008. He generally follows the first three principles, though he definitely fails on the fourth. It’s unfortunate that he balked at political pressure from the right, even though he knows that appeasement isn’t getting him anywhere.

As for Ron Paul, it’s true that he fulfills some of those, though his oration could use work. He has also been backing away from some of his former opinions, which makes me worried that he’ll pull a McCain (essentially trying to change his position to be more in line with the Republican base).

Though I strongly disagree with Ron Paul’s politics, I’ll let that he’s currently comparable to 2008-Obama in his statesmanhood. We’ll see if that holds true.

Speaking of people I’m politically opposed to, I think Gary Johnson (and, to a lesser extent, Huntsman) are very strong on the first three values, and I have a lot of respect for them because of that.

By: William

William — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:52:28 +0000

A thought provoking post; some of the comments, less so.

By: Scott Bookamer

Scott Bookamer — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:52:18 +0000

I didn’t think this article encouraged the idea that you had to agree in all points with the man you designate as “statesman”. If that were so, a statesman would only be a statesman after he had built a fantastic 100% consensus, and that consensus would have to endure throughout history for him to be regarded as one by posterity. I believe #4 only says “ability to build a consensus to achieve that vision”.
Regarding Ben Robbins’ comment, I’d say the consensus threshold described in this article is just what it takes to achieve “that vision”, and may be either majority or minority. We hope (and often see) that our leaders understand Vision must be clearly flexible and accommodating to surprising improvements offered by political enemies.
For us to consider a president with whom we disagree a Statesmen is to be statesmen ourselves. We understand principle, seeing past ourselves and into right and wrong. Based on that mature understanding, we see the future as one that must be achieved together, necessitating humble cooperation and frequent vision-correction.
I’d say it remains to be seen what an American president can do when he has the mature support of his country. We use freedom of speech to make every president an enemy, but we rarely acknowledge that in free speech lies the power of making him our friend.

By: Ben Robbins

Ben Robbins — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:47:54 +0000

As you can tell, when I said, “I haven’t seen any mention thus far of our current president,” what I meant was I hadn’t yet found the Previous Comments button.

By: Ben Robbins

Ben Robbins — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:29:17 +0000

I’m curious to know whether you (anyone, really) think that agreement with one’s own beliefs is a prerequisite to granting statesman status. Also, what is the threshold for “consensus” to be reached? None of the examples offered reached 100% consensus, so I suppose the criteria must accept something less. All that is to point out that I haven’t seen any mention thus far of our current president, which is interesting given how well he has met all four criteria. Perhaps that greatest proof that he has begun achieving his vision is the opposition that is mounting from what is now a minority of conservatives in the U.S., albeit a very concerned minority. Is it possible to acknowledge great statesmanship from a leader with whom we don’t agree, whether Churchill or Obama, and can we learn from these examples also?

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:25:50 +0000

Theodore Roosevelt. Hands down.

By: Steve McGee

Steve McGee — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:29:45 +0000

I would say Ron Paul is a great example of a statesman – because he’s changing the political environment through steadfast principles, a clearly communicated moral compass, an articulated (yet obfuscated by the media) vision, and an ability to bring people together – people who hated each other before the Campaign for Liberty.

His ‘lack of success’ for the previous decades reminds me of the book Good to Great, by Jim Collins. One of the factors of the wildly successful turn-around examples in that book was called the ‘flywheel’. It demonstrated that companies that committed to focusing on a few important, insightful things and put years of effort toward it would eventually experience a ‘breakthrough’ in results. The behaviors started years before the significant improvement in results.

That is what has happened with Ron Paul’s career in government. Years of sticking to the behaviors, based on the principles, vision and values, resulting in a delayed but very significant success.

His character is also similar to the executives profiled in the Good to Great companies, like Coleman Mockler and Darwin Smith. Also, Paul contrasts with Romney and Newt in similar ways the G2G executives differed from ‘Chainsaw’ Allen and Iacocca.

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:09:40 +0000

Agreed. Ron Paul 2012!