A crisis brings out the difference between leaders and curators. For the most part I think the difference is temperamental.
On the one hand you have the curators. The administrators. They maintain the status quo. Their natural element is normalcy. They can function in ordinary times. They are the keepers of the social order. Sentinels of the conventional wisdom.
When the system is good, it’s good to conserve the system. When the law is good, it is good to be law-abiding.
Mind you, curators are also the dutiful bureaucrats who keep the machinery of the totalitarian regime well-oiled. Good or bad, they play by the rules. They never question the rules.
However, the curators can’t function in a crisis. They can’t adjust to something novel or extraordinary. They are vacillating. Or fossilized. Constitutionally unable to rise to the demands of an exigent challenge.
Observing the speed limit is generally a good thing. But if you’re trying to outrun an F-5 tornado, it’s time to floor the accelerator.
In a crisis, natural leaders emerge. They are daring and decisive. Uncompromising in their objectives, but adaptable in their tactics.. Problem-solvers who do whatever it takes to get the job done.
They make great generals. They will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by seizing the moment, even if it means disobeying a direct order from a superior officer.
People like this terrify the curators. It’s the difference between Charles de Gaulle and Marshal Pétain, Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain, Jean Calvin and Henri de Navarre.
Conversely, natural leaders should generally retire to a ranch after the crisis has passed and write their memories or take up painting.
George Patton is very useful in wartime, but a bit of a nuisance in peacetime. Once the good status quo has been restored, or a bad status quo has been replaced, you can let the custodians take it from there.
We see this in church history. And politics. We see this in how different Christians and different Christian institutions react to the threat of dhimmitude and global jihad.
My academic discipline is history.
ReplyDeleteI think this article reflects a somewhat simplistic analysis of social trends and the rise of these historical figures.
It overlooks, for instance, the fact that Winston Churchill already a long career in politics in which he had personally orchestrated enormous blunders.
One of the most notable of these (although Churchill's stuff-ups were myriad) was the invasion of Turkey in 1915 through the Dardanelles Strait. This ended in disaster, retreat and a terrible loss of human life. Generals who led thousands of men into the teeth of machine guns were called butchers by their men, not heroes.
The war-cabinet records from 1940-1945 have recently been released and broadcast by the BBC. Reading this article, one would think Churchill single-handedly ran England alone. This is absurd. Churchill presided over the cabinet, and bowed to the collective wisdom of his peers, some of whom made bold decisions that the author would presumably repudiate (i.e. socialised medicine in the guise of the NHS).
The fact is, society is never comprised of binary personality types, and the distinction between stick-in-the-mud bureaucrats and brave movers-and-shakers is not reflected in actual historical reality (particularly in those cited). For instance, it was the bureaucracy of Germany which tended toward radicalisation. The bureaucrats and government workers supported Hitler and the dissolution of the Wiemar Republic. On the other hand, in Vichy France, bureaucrats frequently capitulated to Hitler's demands.
The characterisation of Chamberlain as a weak leader who preferred the status-quo (the caricature of the "limp-wristed [fill in the blank]" could have come straight from a 1940's American propaganda film.
In fact, it was Chamberlain who opened up diplomatic talks with Hitler and got his agreement in the Munich Accord regarding his military ambitions.
It was Chamberlain who:
1.) guaranteed Polish independence, and pledged British steel to defend it.
2.) Rearmed Britain
3.) Signed mutual defense pacts with France pledging mutual defense of Poland
4.) Doubled the size of the territorial army
5.) And finally, it was Chamberlain who declared war on Hitler.
Chamberlain would have continued as the war-time Prime Minister had he not been forced to resign due to ill-health (cancer).
I point out too that Churchill regarded General De Gaulle as an undemocratic tyrant even before he became president of France.
Oops! My spell checker changed that to WIEmar instead of WEImar. Darn the lack of edit feature! :)
ReplyDeleteJason Landless said:
ReplyDeleteI think this article reflects a somewhat simplistic analysis of social trends and the rise of these historical figures.
Let's say for the sake of argument you're correct. Nevertheless, it doesn't undermine let alone overturn Steve's point (if this is what you're attempting to get at).
Yes, Churchill may have made blunders in the past. Yes, history could've taken a different turn at many points. Yes, there could be debate over the great man theory (although a classical and military historian like Victor Davis Hanson could be said to have argued favorably in this vein). And so on and so forth. Nevertheless, these details don't dimish the point that Churchill was a natural leader. A leader who arose in the wake of a gathering storm. The right man for such a dark hour.
Reading this article, one would think Churchill single-handedly ran England alone.
Only if you read way too much into things. Steve mentioned Churchill once in his post. I don't see how one can reasonably infer the conclusion "one would think Churchill single-handedly ran England alone" from the sentence "It’s the difference between Charles de Gaulle and Marshal Pétain, Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain, Jean Calvin and Henri de Navarre". Steve is citing examples of leaders and curators. He's not suggesting a leader like Churchill "single-handedly ran England alone". Sorry but this displays poor reading comprehension.
This is absurd.
What's absurd is that you've attributed to Steve a position he doesn't hold and subsequently claimed it's absurd.
The fact is, society is never comprised of binary personality types
Did Steve say otherwise? No. He said a crisis brings out the difference between people who are leaders and people who are curators. He didn't say society is comprised of these two personality types. He didn't say this runs the gamut of "personality types" for society. Again, you're erecting a straw man.
stick-in-the-mud bureaucrats and brave movers-and-shakers
"Stick-in-the-mud" has a negative connotation. It's also a simplistic description of what Steve actually said about curators. Steve doesn't say curators are all bad. He says their temperament isn't adapted to a crisis situation. But this doesn't mean they're maladapted to all situations. On the contrary, he said they're able to maintain the status quo.
The characterisation of Chamberlain as a weak leader who preferred the status-quo (the caricature of the "limp-wristed [fill in the blank]" could have come straight from a 1940's American propaganda film.
Once again, this itself is a caricature of what Steve actually said. You're tilting at windmills. Steve didn't say Chamberlain was a "limp-wristed" weakling or whatever you want to say he said. He contrasted Chamberlain with Churchill. Churchill could have had many negative qualities, while Chamberlain could have had many positive qualties. But this doesn't begin to touch Steve's point that Churchill was a leader, while Chamberlain a curator.
@Patrick: I am afraid you have accepted the premise without argumentation, alongside of the novel sociological concept of "curators" and "leaders".
ReplyDeleteSteve clearly placed Churchill in contradistinction to Chamberlain. This is simply historically incorrect, and your affirmation that Chamberlain was a "curator" and not a leader - if we must use these terms as if any historical figure can be described in monochrome - is not confirmed by the activities of his tenure.
Churchill was the Prime Minister of war-time England by an accident, shall we say, of health. Having interviewed a substantial number of people who survived the London Blitz, and who therefore heard Churchill frequently, I am well aware that they tend (not universally, of course) view Churchill chiefly as a charismatic man who articulated in words their feelings after the retreat of the E.F.. Other of Churchill's decisions, which arguably resulted in unnecessary casualties, they see in rather more grayscale than this article. They have a rounded view of the man. Some of them voted him out of office after the war for a host of reasons.
It is not a misreading of this post at all to see that the author is forcing a binary characterisation on these particular personalities and by implication wider society itself - one that has no sociological or historical purview. You can argue that the author "did not say this", but this is simple pedantry as it was clearly implied that crises produce one of two responses.
That was the point of the article, and since it follows a discussion I was having with the author in which he was stating that those who have compassion for OBL are "limp-wristed" and decadent and less moral than himself (by his own assertion), that is the context in which I read this.
Even if one disregards all of that, there is no escaping that this is a simplistic analysis of complex history and complex historical figures, and it is designed, in my view, to make a theological point about the church, with which it concludes. If such points are built atop history of this nature, then we have simply turned history into a species of relativism and pure interpretation emptied of facts.
I observe too that you strained my post to find statements you could disagree with, and on a very feeble basis. In fact, what is "absurd" is the view that Churchill ran England alone - that view IS absurd, whether the author asserted\implied it or not - and secondly, I never stated that the "author claimed" society was comprised of binary personalities. You have done precisely that which you accuse me of: misreading and adding terms to make your strawman rebuttal stand upright. Rather, I have simply affirmed a fact. Are you arguing that my statement is untrue?
In relation to Chamberlain as "limp-wristed", I clearly affirmed this was a caricature. I did not state it came from the author, although I suspect his view of Chamberlain is, or was, along those lines.
I would suggest, therefore, that your response is an effort to find something to criticise. Given that what I have written is manifestly true, and given the inaccurate historical characterisations in the original post, I shall leave you to it.
Jason Landless said:
ReplyDeleteI am afraid you have accepted the premise without argumentation, alongside of the novel sociological concept of "curators" and "leaders".
1. I don't have to agree with Steve to find your comments faulty.
2. I've already mentioned this but I'm not disputing the historical facts or even your spin on them. Rather I granted (arguendo) that your previous statements about Churchill, Chamberlain, and so forth were true. Nevertheless, I said, your comments demonstrate that you've misread Steve for the reasons I gave above. That's the problem.
your affirmation that Chamberlain was a "curator" and not a leader...is not confirmed by the activities of his tenure.
Like I've already stated several times now, even if we grant this is true, it doesn't overturn Steve's point. Steve framed his post primarily in terms of "temperament," not "activities". Again, this isn't at all to ignore Chamberlain's achievements. Nor is it to ignore Churchill's blunders. Rather this is to say Churchill had the right temperament to lead the UK from such a dark hour to its "finest hour". Churchill rose to the challenge of Nazism in a way that Chamberlain did not.
It is not a misreading of this post at all to see that the author is forcing a binary characterisation on these particular personalities and by implication wider society itself
You're moving the goalposts. Originally, your contention against Steve's post was "society is never comprised of binary personality types". Now you're saying Steve is "forcing a binary characterisation on these particular personalities". I suppose the latter could be a fairer assessment than the former. But the fact that you're trying to sing a different tune here is a tacit concession that your original contention was indeed flawed.
You can argue that the author "did not say this", but this is simple pedantry as it was clearly implied that crises produce one of two responses
Since I didn't merely leave it at "the author 'did not say this'" but also pointed out why, it hardly bespeaks a reasonable counterargument to label it "simple pedantry".
Even if one disregards all of that, there is no escaping that this is a simplistic analysis of complex history and complex historical figures
This may or may not be true, but you have to provide reasoned argumentation to support this. You can't simply say "there is no escaping" this point in "disregard" of what you've previously said and expect it to hold water on its own.
and it is designed, in my view, to make a theological point about the church, with which it concludes.
1. Let's agree for the moment this is true. What's wrong with "mak[ing] a theological point about the church"?
2. Moreover, it's only problematic if your former premise is true. But since I don't grant your premise, I don't have to grant your conclusion.
In fact, what is "absurd" is the view that Churchill ran England alone - that view IS absurd, whether the author asserted\implied it or not
ReplyDelete1. Now you're not only misreading Steve but you're misreading me.
Originally you said, "Reading this [i.e. Steve's] article, one would think Churchill single-handedly ran England alone". I replied that Steve didn't actually say this. Now you're saying "what is 'absurd' is the view that Churchill ran England alone - that view IS absurd, whether the author asserted\implied it or not".
But I never took issue with whether or not the view that "Churchill ran England alone" is itself "absurd". No, I took issue with the fact that you attributed this view to Steve. Contrary to what you may think, it makes all the difference "whether the author [i.e. Steve] asserted\implied it or not". That was the original bone of contention.
However, since you're now backing away from your original assertion, rewriting history as it were, it's once again a tacit concession on your part that you're mistaken.
2. BTW, it's rather ironic that you demonstrate such a paucity in reading comprehension in light of the fact that you've said your "academic discipline is history". One would think a historian would, at a minimum, need to demonstrate average proficiency in reading comprehension.
and secondly, I never stated that the "author claimed" society was comprised of binary personalities. You have done precisely that which you accuse me of: misreading and adding terms to make your strawman rebuttal stand upright. Rather, I have simply affirmed a fact. Are you arguing that my statement is untrue?
1. Here's what you said: "The fact is, society is never comprised of binary personality types, and the distinction between stick-in-the-mud bureaucrats and brave movers-and-shakers is not reflected in actual historical reality (particularly in those cited)."
As such, you haven't "simply affirmed a fact". What you've said was based on your interpretation of what Steve said. What you've thought he said. It takes Steve's argument as the reference point. What you've said can't be divorced from the context of the post unless you wish for what you said to carry no weight with regard to Steve's point.
2. Speaking of which, if it's true that you're "simply affirm[ing] a fact," and not claiming that that's what Steve said, then, if it's not something Steve argued, what you've said does no harm to Steve's argument. By your own admission, you're just tilting at windmills (which in turn affirms what I originally said you were doing).
3. Whether your statement divorced from the "author['s] claim" is true or untrue isn't the issue. It's a red herring. You're trying to weasel your way out of what you originally said so you don't have to acknowledge your poor reading comprehension and defeated point.
In relation to Chamberlain as "limp-wristed", I clearly affirmed this was a caricature. I did not state it came from the author
ReplyDeleteIf so, then it has no direct bearing on Steve's argument.
At this rate, I hardly have to do anything! I just have to wait for you to disarm yourself. Thanks again for being so eager to wave the white flag.
Given that what I have written is manifestly true, and given the inaccurate historical characterisations in the original post, I shall leave you to it.
Ah, I see! I see what's happening now. I see what's lurking behind all this.
In another thread, you said, "Like most Americans, you view this through the prism of your country, which becomes the locus of morality". But in this thread you've said, "One of the most notable of these (although Churchill's stuff-ups were myriad) was the invasion of Turkey in 1915 through the Dardanelles Strait. This ended in disaster, retreat and a terrible loss of human life. Generals who led thousands of men into the teeth of machine guns were called butchers by their men, not heroes".
Your Blogger profile indicates you're Aussie. Your second statement obviously refers to Gallipoli. So if we apply your first statement to your second, then we could infer you're prejudiced against Churchill in light of what happened to Aussies at Gallipoli! You're miffed at Churchill for being the architect behind Aussie (and other) troops fighting and dying at Gallipoli. You're viewing Churchill through "the prism of your country, which becomes the locus of morality" for you. Your opinion about Churchill reflects your own national bias, which in turn is, on your view, "the locus of morality". It all makes such perfect sense now!
His response is an exercise in misdirection. Even if Churchill committed blunders, that's a red hearing. Natural leaders can commit blunders. They take risks. They gamble. They win big or lose big. That's part of the package.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, curators are risk-averse. They avoid conflict. They play it safe.
In the words of BSG, "Sometimes you gotta roll a hard six."
Leaders are prepared to do that, curators are not.