Robert Dallek, one of the world’s premier authorities on the United States’ presidency, whose award-winning books on Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy were joined last year by the dual study “Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power,” presented his vision of what it takes to be an effective president at a lecture he gave at the James and Betty Hall Theatre at Dutchess Community College on Wednesday, March 26.
Titled “Presidential Leadership in War and Peace,” the talk focused on existential qualities which the Boston University history professor stressed were possessed by few office holders.
“The presidency is the most difficult job anyone could assume,” Dallek stated right at the outset of his lecture. “I don’t understand why anyone wants to. Harry Truman characterized it as, “like riding on the back of a tiger.” Only 16 out of 43 presidents were elected to a second term, and the historian looking at this record and asking why so few presidents do well is bound to ask not only what makes for effective leadership, but what are the hallmarks of ineffective leadership as well.”
For Dallek, a memorable presidency is a function of five qualities which it is important for a chief executive to possess in varying degrees: vision, pragmatism, charisma, the ability to build a consensus and trust/credibility, as well as one intangible that no human being, not even the most powerful man on earth, has any control over – luck.
“There can be no doubt that great presidents are not only remembered for the stirring events and achievements that occurred during their term, but also for the nature of the vision they presented, preferably accompanied by a memorable title,” he said. “Teddy Roosevelt’s ‘Square Deal’ – the country wanted a leader who looked after general, not special, interests, and this name, with all its American connotations of fairness, struck a resonant chord. FDR’s ‘New Deal’ – people knew what that meant; they knew it was time for a change. Truman’s ‘Containment’ – he knew that restraint rather than war was the best way of dealing with the Soviets, and their system would eventually fall of its own contradictions. And the list goes on: JFK’s ‘New Frontier;’ LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ and ‘The Reagan Revolution.’ All had what many people felt was a compelling vision for the country, and they knew how to package it.”
Ideals versus practicality
Yet the professor emphasized that the flip side of pointing people toward far horizons is a keen sense of how to get there while keeping your feet firmly planted on the ground.
“Those who want to serve effectively in the White House need to constantly think in pragmatic terms,” he said. “The New Deal was a series of experiments; FDR knew he had to be flexible and discard something when it had failed. LBJ’s version of pragmatism was that he was extraordinarily manipulative, Reagan’s was that he was skilled at using humor to disarm the press, something that was highly effective.”
And no one who lives in the media age would be surprised at the emphasis Dallek put on having charisma.
“In political terms, charisma means an ability to connect with people, to make them think that you’re on their side, and no one did this better than Franklin Roosevelt. There were only about 33 ‘Fireside Chats,’ because he didn’t want them to be redundant or a common thing, but when they occurred, they commanded the attention of the entire nation – it was like having the president in your living room. Reagan, so different from FDR in politics, emulated him through the radio addresses that were a regular feature of his presidency, and earned him the title, ‘The Great Communicator.’”
And he stressed that a failure in charisma is one of the surest indicators of a failed presidency.
“People would say of Herbert Hoover that a rose would wilt in his hand,” Dallek said. “LBJ was e as an overbearing vulgarian and Gerald Ford as a klutz. And their lack of appeal and charisma cost them dearly.”
As he had done in the matter of charisma, Dallek again ranked Franklin Roosevelt first the ability to build a consensus.
“FDR was mindful of how intensely isolationist America was, and so he was in no rush to get into WW II,” Dallek said. “He knew that in such an atmosphere, if America entered prematurely, the first setback would destroy the consensus. So Pearl Harbor was a godsend for him – it gave him a consensus that could not waver. Quite the opposite was Harry Truman, who made the mistake in the Korean War of crossing the 38th Parallel, which brought Chinese intervention, and so he lost his consensus.”
Dallek illustrated the trust/credibility issue by listing a series of moments when a president memorably lost credibility in an instant, such as Woodrow Wilson promising more than he could deliver in WW I, Nixon wagging his finger and saying “I am not a crook,” and Clinton doing the same while denying he had had relations with Monica Lewinsky.
He contrasted these instances with the case of FDR going against his generals to insist that the Russians could indeed hold out against the Nazis in the summer and fall of 1941, and so were worthy of lend-lease assistance – a prediction and action that helped win WW II.
As for the great intangible, luck, Dallek feels that while it is always important in human affairs, it is not the most important attribute for a president.
“Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt; both pairs faced the same circumstances in their era, and the Roosevelts triumphed while the others did not,” Dallek said.
After his talk, Dallek spoke with the Beat about what he feels are the presidential qualities most needed in the current age of multiple wars and jihadist terrorism.
“At this moment, a great grand vision is what is needed,” he said. “It is also terribly important to reestablish our good name; our standing has been so diminished by Iraq. A vision that is realistic, implemented with pragmatism and achieved by building a consensus among ourselves and with other countries is imperative. But let me tell you, I don’t envy the person whose job it is to bring all this about.”