Should Every Leader Try To Be "Great"

[Japher]

In the ruling of a country/land/government should every leader within it's line of rulers be "great" or, at least, "greater" than the last leader in the progression?

I don't know if I can even define "great" as the term is generally held to refer to conquerers and warriors. Still, if I were to attempt to define "great" I would say such a leader would increase the morale of a country by over coming internal and external strife with the support and love of their countrymen.

I'm not to wisened on history, but in the US I can name but a few presidents and leaders who have actually done anything significant. Many of our leaders have been normal men, doing everyday things, keeping the status quo which, in that time, was darn near pleasant. While these men, whose names not only excape my mind, will not be considered "great" would they be considered "good"?

Then, I can think of some men in our time who have gone down in infamy. Their names bring a fire to our mind and a image of that person is countered with disgust and hate. By no means are these ppl "great"... yet, maybe if the won?

There's probably a good quote that says with better poise what that catcher in Major League 2 said; "When the tough get going, the going gets tough". Heroes aren't born for peaceful times, and "greatness" doesn't fall to those maritime leaders. Still, what of those leader born in those times when "greatness" can occur? What traits are required of those leaders?

We don't send house dogs to flush out bear or wolves.

IMO, sometimes what we need is someone to stay the course and takes us where we don't want to go. Sometimes the "greatness" of an act is not seen until the results are felt. History is written by the victors, but until then they are only one side in a fight.

I am not trying to defend Bush, or justify what he is doing. Nor am I trying to call him out. All I am saying is that sometimes doing something is better than doing nothing... and sometimes it is not.

So, the question: Should every leader try to be "great"?

[KrazyHorse]

No leader should ever try to be "great"

That's a selfish, personal concern. Their job is to do whatever's best for their citizenry, not ride their citizens' backs to greatness.

[Az]

The best in our current system of government is that those last two are interconnected rather strongly ( but not perfectly)

[Japher]

I think the only difference between a leader who is perceived to be trying to be great and one who is perceived to be "right for their time" is political clout.

[Riesstiu IV]

All leaders sgould aspire to be "the terrible", "the conqueror", or "the cruel."

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az
The best in our current system of government is that those last two are interconnected rather strongly ( but not perfectly)

Sometimes. And sometimes not. The point is that it shouldn't be a leader's concern to be great, but simply to do what's best. If that leads to greatness then so be it.

Sometimes the best thing a leader can do is not to be great. If things are going well, peace abounds etc. then what right does a leader have to **** things up simply to leave his own mark?

[Az]

Sometimes. And sometimes not. The point is that it shouldn't be a leader's concern to be great, but simply to do what's best. If that leads to greatness then so be it.

I would prefer that, too, of course. but I am fully willing to settle for them being driven by the former, as long as it leads for the latter) .

Sometimes the best thing a leader can do is not to be great. If things are going well, peace abounds etc. then what right does a leader have to **** things up simply to leave his own mark?

Things would have to be pretty ****ing peachy for a president having no place for greatness, just for ****ing stuff up. Peacetime, and the economy is doing fine? time to take care of long term problems that will only surface in decades, NOW. Time to jump start great beneficial national projects. Time to improve the living standards of people in other countries. There is plenty to be done.

[Frankychan]

A leader should be just, fair, and good.

A leader who strives to be "great" ends up doing foolish and reckless things to try and aggrandize themselves.

[Az]

Yes, but there are risks in everything. The problem is to calcuate them well-enough. So, a leader who just does good on his term, and doesn't adress long term issues, is really a bad leader, but history often doesn't judge them as such.

[Provost Harrison]

I think they should all try to be "dear"

[Wiglaf]

Sometimes the best thing a leader can do is not to be great. If things are going well, peace abounds etc. then what right does a leader have to **** things up simply to leave his own mark?

If Clinton had been "great" he'd have gotten Osama long before 9/11...

[Imran Siddiqui]

So would Bush... if he'd been 'great'.

[Maquiladora]

Leaders should build peaceful wonders to be great, not start wars.

At least we can vandalise a stupid Bush monument.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So would Bush... if he'd been 'great'.

It's tough after eight years. ..

[DanS]

In the RC church, out of 265 popes, only two have been termed "the great" by general acclamation, with John Paul II being perhaps a third. These are such poor odds that it seems that only intense vanity would drive you to strive toward it. (Even St. Peter is not described as such, although of course his role in the church is central.)

I don't think that the US has had any presidents that could be easily described in such a manner, but I find that to be a good thing. Normal people can succeed in the presidency and even bad presidents will not harm us unduly. Nowadays, the job gives gray hair, however, so it must be an incredibly tough one.