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?