Sunday, February 28, 2021

499. Do we need heroes?

BROWDERBOOKS

Bad news: The splendid new book cover with the Statue of Liberty --  one of the most exciting covers I've ever seen -- will be trashed.  The new edition of Fascinating New Yorkers is canceled, partly because of Amazon's rules about new editions, and partly because I have had a stressful relationship with BooksGoSocial, the outfit that was going to help me publish it.  Too bad, but that's how it is.


DO  WE  NEED  HEROES?


They seem to come out of nowhere well stocked with charisma, bigger than life, and almost divinely appointed to answer the needs of the people.  They used to come on a white horse, handsomely outfitted and with grandiose gestures.  Or at least they were painted like that.  There is a painting by Arayo Gomez, Simon Bolivar Crossing the Andes, that shows Bolivar in a uniform with gold epaulettes, topped by a tall hat topped by a plume.  And yes, the horse, rearing, is white.  

Bolivar, the liberator of half of South America, was likewise in fact a hero, but the painting was inspired by David's painting, Napoleon Crossing the Alps.  Napoleon was certainly a hero to many, and he was shown in a uniform, gesturing grandly, on a rearing white horse.  


File:David - Napoleon crossing the Alps - Malmaison2.jpg


Heroes in those days were enhanced by white horses, uniforms, and mountains that needed to be crossed.  And they seemed to be begotten by revolutions overthrowing an old order and establishing a new one.  Bolivar was ousting Spanish rule, and Napoleon got his chance for glory in the wake of the French Revolution.

Our George Washington was of a different breed.  He did appear mounted, though I don't know if his horse was white.  His heroic painting is the 1851 painting by Emanuele Leutze, Washington Crossing the Delaware.  He had no mountain handy, but the ice-jammed Delaware served very well.  He is seen standing grandly toward the front of a boat, as his men row heroically through the ice-clogged river to attack the Hessians at Trenton.  He did indeed cross the river, though surely not standing grandly, or he might have been tossed into its icy waters.  


File:Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze, MMA-NYC, 1851.jpg


Washington, a bona fide hero, astonished many by his lack of ambition.  Once our Revolution was over and the thirteen colonies were independent, he resigned his commission and retired to private life.  Called back into public life when elected our first president, he served two terms and again retired to private life.  This makes him almost unique among the heroes who appeared in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe and the Americas, riding white horses, most of them (the horses) imaginary, not real.

A good example of the effects of charisma is Hegel's comment, when he saw Napoleon riding through Jena the day before his great victory over the Prussians in 1806.  He said he had seen the "World Soul riding out of town."  And this from a philosopher!

The risks of having a charismatic leader are obvious.  Few of them are going to retire gracefully like Washington.  They break rules and are praised for it; they are beyond routine and hostile to it, beyond good and evil.  Such were Hitler and Mussolini, to cite obvious examples.  Said Bolivar, "I am convinced deep in my bones that only a skillful despotism can rule America."  While in exile on St. Helena, Napoleon told a confidant that, had he been in America, he would willingly have been a Washington.  But all you could do with the French, he said, was give them orders.

Charismatic heroes often end badly, having shown poor judgment.  Hitler, Mussolini, Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya.  And when Napoleon fought his last battle at Waterloo, he had managed to alienate every great power in Europe; they were all against him.  All these heroes were superbly gifted in some ways, but in the long run, far from brilliant.

Which American presidents, besides Washington, were unusually gifted with charisma --  a charisma  felt not just by their devoted followers, but by many others as well?  I suggest the following: 

  • Teddy Roosevelt, remembered for our national park system, the Teddy bear (named for him), and charging up San Juan Hill.  He wanted to come back for another term in 1912, ran on a third-party ticket, split the Republican vote, and gave the election to the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson.  But even so, he played by the rules.
  • Andrew Jackson, though some Americans loathed him.  Our first Western president ("Western" = west of the Appalachians), his frontier ways offended genteel Easterners but delighted Westerners.  Tough, imperious, and scrappy, he too played by the rules.
  • Abraham Lincoln, though also in his time controversial.  He had a folksy benevolence that went over big with voters.  He too played by the rules.
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt: a charmer, but his charm masked craftiness and a will of iron.  He broke the rules by running for a third, and then a fourth, term -- not illegal, but unprecedented.  He couldn't give up power, least of all with war looming and then declared, but he got himself re-elected.
  • John F. Kennedy: young, dynamic, good-looking.  Tremendous appeal, but he died too soon for a good appraisal.  His early death made him available for all kinds of idealization.
  • Benjamin Franklin:  Not a president, but a founding father with loads of charisma. During our Revolution he used it to good effect in France, gently nudging the king and his foreign minister toward war with Great Britain.  He simply oozed charm, captivated everyone -- ministers, courtiers, gracious ladies of the aristocracy.  But he had no inflated notion of his own importance, no need to flout the rules.
In conclusion I would say that democracy needs heroes, whether mounted on a white horse or not, for their charisma helps bind the nation together.  And democratic nations, tending to be fractious and divided, need binding.  But heroes, having a high opinion of themselves, risk breaking the rules by grabbing and keeping power.  Our system of checks and balances counters this, and our most charismatic presidents have accepted limitations and defeat.  I can think of one exception, but I'll not mention him by name.

Source note: This post was inspired in part by "Democracy's Demagogues," a review by Ferdinand Mount of David A. Bell's "Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution," in the New York Times of Sunday, January 14, 2021.

©  2021  Clifford Browder







1 comment: