Does a good leader have to be a good person? Or are perhaps these two qualities mutually exclusive?
Niccolo Machiavelli, the 16th century author of The Prince, said that while it would theoretically be wonderful for a leader to be both loved and obeyed, a good prince should always err on the side of inspiring terror(!), as this is what really keeps people in check. He pointed to obvious incompatibilities between Christian ethics and good governance, as a leader who is weak won't last for long.
In this context I decided to do a quick review of the last few decades of US American presidents What was characteristic of the successful ones? And the unsuccessful ones?
Jimmy Carter seems like a person of good character, a good Christian, someone who we like as a person. But as a president he's been rated mostly in the third quartile by academic historians, and left office with only a 34 percent approval rating.
Ronald Reagan was also a likeable person, especially with his two wives. But as a politician he was sometimes ruthless. He left a lasting legacy, the 'Reagan era', that has defined policies on taxes, welfare, defence, the federal judiciary, and the Cold War, which lasted well after he left office and only started to fade with the presidency of Obama. Reagan has been rated mostly in the first quartile as a president, especially in more recent times. He left office with the highest approval ratings of any departing president in the modern era, 68 percent.
George H. W. Bush has been rated mostly in the second and third quartile. His career points to a perhaps hawkish tendency: war hero, oil company president and chairman, member of House of Representatives, director of CIA, and as president he was leading the country to war and military interventions. However, he lost an important battle with Congress and had to go along with tax increases which were contrary to his campaign promises. This along with an economic recession resulted in approval ratings at the end of his presidency at only 37 percent.
Bill Clinton is rated mostly in the second quartile by academic historians, but is tied with Reagan as the best scoring approval rating of any departing president in the modern era. He presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history. He ordered military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo which were successful in ending hostilities and helping to restore a fragile peace to the region. Progressive laws were passed under his presidency such as the family and medical leave act, but his administration failed to pass health care reform despite a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress at the beginning of his first term.
George W. Bush is rated mostly in the fourth quartile by academic historians. His approval ratings were the highest ever recorded in the wake of the September 11. attacks, but his final approval ratings were very low, 34 percent (Gallup) and 22 percent (CBS News / NY Times). He took the country to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which turned out to be costly both monetarily and in terms of human lives, and yet these countries are still today in turmoil. In his personal life he was an avid reader, and spoke highly of his wife, Laura.
Barack Obama has been rated in the second quartile by historians. His approval ratings were between 55 and 62 percent at the end of his presidency. In his personal life it would be fair to say Obama belongs to the 'good person' category. As a president he seems to have succeeded sometimes by being pragmatic and "bipartisan", sometimes by executive orders and presidential vetoes. Some of his successes include the Affordable Care Act, repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", his economic stimulus package, the nuclear deal with Iran, and the assassination of Al-Qaeda's leader Osama bin Laden. He also significantly scaled down the military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and this has been well received with the electorate. He's been criticised for extensive use of drone attacks which sometimes lead to civilian casualties, and the chaos resulting from the military intervention in Libya.
Conclusion
I think Machiavelli is clearly wrong in suggesting a good leader has to "inspire terror", though it's possible that's how it was like in his own time. On the other hand, it does seem like several of the US presidents were relatively "good persons" in their personal lives, but it's not clear that this did them any favours in their capacity as leaders. Obviously, a good person doesn't take actions that endanger other people's lives, but an ordinary person also usually isn't in a position that require them to choose between life and death, or between death and more death. So I don't think making such a choice makes them a bad person.
Those who were considered successful - Reagan, and to a lesser extent Clinton and Obama, had some ruthless traits, but mostly I think the trait they relied on was pragmatism. Yes, they definitely pushed their own agendas, but only as far as was feasible.
Sources are mostly Wikipedia articles, see e.g. Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
Niccolo Machiavelli, the 16th century author of The Prince, said that while it would theoretically be wonderful for a leader to be both loved and obeyed, a good prince should always err on the side of inspiring terror(!), as this is what really keeps people in check. He pointed to obvious incompatibilities between Christian ethics and good governance, as a leader who is weak won't last for long.
In this context I decided to do a quick review of the last few decades of US American presidents What was characteristic of the successful ones? And the unsuccessful ones?
Jimmy Carter seems like a person of good character, a good Christian, someone who we like as a person. But as a president he's been rated mostly in the third quartile by academic historians, and left office with only a 34 percent approval rating.
Ronald Reagan was also a likeable person, especially with his two wives. But as a politician he was sometimes ruthless. He left a lasting legacy, the 'Reagan era', that has defined policies on taxes, welfare, defence, the federal judiciary, and the Cold War, which lasted well after he left office and only started to fade with the presidency of Obama. Reagan has been rated mostly in the first quartile as a president, especially in more recent times. He left office with the highest approval ratings of any departing president in the modern era, 68 percent.
George H. W. Bush has been rated mostly in the second and third quartile. His career points to a perhaps hawkish tendency: war hero, oil company president and chairman, member of House of Representatives, director of CIA, and as president he was leading the country to war and military interventions. However, he lost an important battle with Congress and had to go along with tax increases which were contrary to his campaign promises. This along with an economic recession resulted in approval ratings at the end of his presidency at only 37 percent.
Bill Clinton is rated mostly in the second quartile by academic historians, but is tied with Reagan as the best scoring approval rating of any departing president in the modern era. He presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history. He ordered military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo which were successful in ending hostilities and helping to restore a fragile peace to the region. Progressive laws were passed under his presidency such as the family and medical leave act, but his administration failed to pass health care reform despite a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress at the beginning of his first term.
George W. Bush is rated mostly in the fourth quartile by academic historians. His approval ratings were the highest ever recorded in the wake of the September 11. attacks, but his final approval ratings were very low, 34 percent (Gallup) and 22 percent (CBS News / NY Times). He took the country to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which turned out to be costly both monetarily and in terms of human lives, and yet these countries are still today in turmoil. In his personal life he was an avid reader, and spoke highly of his wife, Laura.
Barack Obama has been rated in the second quartile by historians. His approval ratings were between 55 and 62 percent at the end of his presidency. In his personal life it would be fair to say Obama belongs to the 'good person' category. As a president he seems to have succeeded sometimes by being pragmatic and "bipartisan", sometimes by executive orders and presidential vetoes. Some of his successes include the Affordable Care Act, repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", his economic stimulus package, the nuclear deal with Iran, and the assassination of Al-Qaeda's leader Osama bin Laden. He also significantly scaled down the military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and this has been well received with the electorate. He's been criticised for extensive use of drone attacks which sometimes lead to civilian casualties, and the chaos resulting from the military intervention in Libya.
Conclusion
I think Machiavelli is clearly wrong in suggesting a good leader has to "inspire terror", though it's possible that's how it was like in his own time. On the other hand, it does seem like several of the US presidents were relatively "good persons" in their personal lives, but it's not clear that this did them any favours in their capacity as leaders. Obviously, a good person doesn't take actions that endanger other people's lives, but an ordinary person also usually isn't in a position that require them to choose between life and death, or between death and more death. So I don't think making such a choice makes them a bad person.
Those who were considered successful - Reagan, and to a lesser extent Clinton and Obama, had some ruthless traits, but mostly I think the trait they relied on was pragmatism. Yes, they definitely pushed their own agendas, but only as far as was feasible.
Sources are mostly Wikipedia articles, see e.g. Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia