Leaders and Flaws

"What kind of a people do they think we are?  Can it be they do not realize that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget?"  Later, "Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them."  (I'm doing these from memory; I might have a word or two wrong.)

Some of you may recognize these as coming from Winston Churchill.  The first was part of a speech to the US Congress after American entry into the Second World War.  The second comes from his Iron Curtain Speech at Westminster College in Fulton, MO.

The British have voted Churchill the "greatest Briton," with full discount that he was far more well-known that other Brits of the long past.  Even some American historians, at the turn of the 20th Century, chose him as "The Man of the Century."  Whether, due to his role in World War 2, he "saved Western Civilization" may be a bit much.  All of these are debatable.

But he was also an elitist and a bigot.  He was an imperialist and anti-Semite (but pro-Zionist!).  But this isn't about Churchill, per se.  Check, for instance, his views on Indians and Arabs.  For all of his greatness, he had flaws, many of them deep. 

How, then, do we evaluate our leaders (heroes even)?  I've written about how I think character and morality matter, particularly in light of recent and present public figures/politicians.  Yet, I am reminded that many people I've admired, including Churchill, were flawed, some deeply so.  How then to wrestle with their "greatness?"

I was and have been critical of Bill Clinton, Don Trump, and others for their dishonesty, infidelity, and more.  I still think that morality and character matter. 

Last week there was a special section of the newspaper on the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King.  The many quotations scattered throughout the section were reminders, as if I needed any, of the greatness of the man.  One that has always struck me is this:  "Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle......" That is a lesson that shouldn't be forgotten, but frequently is.  Another:  "A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right."  Like Churchill, King had flaws, maybe some deep.  He did plagiarize some of his dissertation at Boston U, not enough to have a committee that reviewed it posthumously to revoke his degree.  It did recognize the plagiarism. (Imagine the pressure on such a committee!)  It's also pretty well known that King had, as Ralph Abernathy wrote, "a weakness for women."

Neither of these men, Churchill and King, were heroes to me, not in the normal sense of the word.  But I greatly admire each.  I suppose the closest I have to a hero is Abraham Lincoln, as demonstrated by my several Lincoln ties, socks, tee shirts, a bobble head, and even underwear!  I am aware of his flaws, as I think he was.  I think what really separates him from others was the observation of W.E.B. DuBois, one of the founders of the NAACP, made in a letter/essay  ("Again, Lincoln," 1922) more than 50 years after Lincoln's assassination.  I've written it before, from memory, but it bears repeating here:  "Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century......  I love him not because he was perfect, but because he was not and yet triumphed.  The world is full of illegitimate children.  The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter.  This world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say:  See this man.  He was one of you and yet became Abraham Lincoln."  No, he was not perfect, but, I think consciously, worked toward perfection.

Others, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (slaveowners), Woodrow Wilson (elitist and racist), Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy (deceitful and philanderers) all are held up as, if not heroes, as great men.  (Rightly or wrongly, in some I think very wrong, but that's not my point here, to discuss their "greatness.")  How do we evaluate them?

Are we sometimes blinded by myopia, that is, short-term successes while not seeing the bigger picture, say, longer-term detriments, things which may not appear for years afterward?  Are there no real heroes?  Is that relevant?  Can we still admire men, if not their characters, at least their accomplishments?

Is it even a discussion worth having, instead of, say, drywall?

Big Government

"Big Government" doesn't just apply to DC and the massive federal apparatus.  It's in many of the states and local governments, too.  A recent Detroit News op-ed detailed some egregious examples.

I've seen some of these before, but they bear remembering.  In Michigan, an auto mechanic can take a 6-hour course to become state certified.  That's fine.  According to federal regulations, a commercial airplane pilot requires 1,500 hours of instruction.  That's fine, too, esp when I'm up in a metal tube, 36,000 feet in the sky, traveling at 600 mph!  To get a license, Michigan requires barbers to have 1,800 hours of classes/instruction to cut hair.

There are certain rules that govern cosmetology students' ability to shampoo clients' hair.  I don't know about Michigan's regulations, but there's a Supreme Court case now challenging Tennessee's (?) requirement of 300 hours of instruction "on the theory and practice of shampooing."  Silly me.  I thought it was "Apply.  Lather.  Rinse."  At least that's what's on the bottle in our shower stall.

Of course, the rationale is always that such onerous rules and regulations are to protect the public.  OK, I understand the pilots' requirements.  The health care and child care fields?  OK.  I admit that there is a public safety issue in regulating electricians and the like, too.

But what about florists, like some states do?  Or tree trimmers?  In California, a woman was fined $10,000 for trimming, by request, some branches from her neighbor's oak tree.  She didn't have a license.  Toss in hair-braiders, tour guides, and yoga instructors.  In a number of states, they must be licensed.  Why?  For instance, if my yoga instructor is rotten (none of them are; they are very good), I can stop going, find another place, etc.  Wisconsin regulated sign language interpreters.  An Oregon engineer with engineering degrees from Cornell and MIT, was fined $500 for not being "a registered engineer," that is, "registered" with the state.  I've written many times about how I think student teaching for prospective teachers is a scam.

This isn't just about government overreach, this attitude that somehow government knows more and better than we do and must stick its hand in more and more aspects of our lives.  There is a good deal of economic evidence that the excessive regulation costs jobs and depresses pay.

Two articles in the latest issue of the Amherst Alumni Magazine are worthy of note.  One, telling the life of Harold Wade, Jr., was compelling--and I don't toss that word around blithely.  He was a black student from NYC, a senior when I was a freshman, but I didn't know him and don't at all remember him.  I wish I had.  (But that, me taking advantage of a wider range of students, was still a couple of years off.  As I recently told one of my professors, "I was struggling to keep my head above water" academically and otherwise.)  The author of Black Men of Amherst (now out of print) , Wade tragically drowned just a few years after graduation.  From a memorable article, I keep returning to this from Wade, "This college is moving [forward in the area of civil rights] and does not have to disown its past to do so."  I think we can consider that in much of our current evaluations of the past, particularly in light of the Civil War and slavery.

Related, perhaps only tangentially (I used that word frequently and was pleased to hear one of my students this AM use it!), was another article which chronicled a number of recent Amherst graduates who are "making their mark in China."  They have become entrepreneurs there.  I didn't read much of the article, but was still a bit perplexed.  Why are these Americans doing their work in China, Commie China?  Aren't the Chinese among the most repressed people in the world?  Aren't they ruled by the ham-handed commie party?  What rights do they have?  (Heh Heh.)  Yet more, don't the Chinese lead the world (or are at least close) in stealing others' ideas in technology, military secrets, and intellectual property?  So, why are these people helping the Chinese?  I guess, if had read the article, the answer might be they are seeking to help the Chinese people, not the Chinese government.  Hmmm......  Haven't there been movements in the US to go after companies and individuals who profited from dealing with Hitler and the Nazis and companies and families who built the foundations of their fortunes on slavery before the Civil War?  What's the difference?  I never liked that the Michigan governors, the last two at least, courted trade with China.  The commies in China, Nazis, slaveholders??????  I guess when it boils down to it, it's all about money.