It is easy to take the role of leaders for granted, seeing them as subject to the whims of fate—the international and domestic political contexts in which they operate. Prussian Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck, as responsible as any leader for the rapid rise of Germany to great power status in the late 19th century, once famously stated, “Man cannot create the current of events. He can only float with it and steer.”1
Yet plenty of examples seem to suggest otherwise, beginning with American foreign policy in the first few years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and elsewhere.
In 2000, the United States Supreme Court delivered an extremely close election victory to Republican candidate George W. Bush over Democratic candidate Al Gore.2 While any American serving as president of the United States would have likely invaded Afghanistan, as George W. Bush did in 2001, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a different story. Even conservative advocates such as William Kristol referred to the war in Iraq as one of choice.3
Had the U.S. Supreme Court ruled differently and demanded a complete recount of the disputed election returns, which would have placed Al Gore into the presidency rather than Bush, would a then-President Gore have done the same? Most tend to think no—that Gore would have allowed diplomacy to play out longer with Iraq and would have counted on maintenance or tightening of the economic sanctions regime then in place to deter Saddam Hussein4
Today, few would deny that Vladimir Putin’s personal preferences have played a critical role in motivating Russian aggression against Ukraine—from the invasion of Crimea to Russian support for Ukrainian separatists in Eastern Ukraine.
Going back further in history, while the secession of the Confederacy may have been inevitable, due to the pernicious institution of slavery and a handful of other factors, a devastating civil war was not. Abraham Lincoln’s victory in the hotly contested 1860 election over John Breckinridge triggered the South’s move towards succession and Confederacy by many Southern states.5 Lincoln’s leadership of the Union in the war is now the stuff of legend—considered a definitive example of where a particular leader made a difference.
Lincoln suffered critics on both sides. Liberals bemoaned his draconian policy choices such as the arrest of the Maryland legislature to bar the secession. Conservative critics felt he dallied before pressing the war after dramatic early losses. Perhaps the turning point in the war, the Emancipation Proclamation, was controversial as well. Lincoln summed up the depth of criticism he faced in an interview when he observed, “If I were to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on this office, it might as well be closed for want of any other business.” One need not stretch one’s imagination to be able to believe that were it not for Lincoln, the future of the United States and perhaps democracy worldwide would have been quite different.
Leaders affect national policies in several ways. One of the more obvious is through their decisions about war and peace. Leaders are responsible for calibrating national policy when it comes to a country’s grand strategy as well as how to treat particular countries. Leaders are ultimately responsible for their nation’s involvement in or avoidance of war.
Following the failure of Britain’s appeasement policies from 1938-1939, Neville Chamberlain resigned as British Prime Minster, acknowledging Leo Amery and other conservative critics of the Chamberlain government’s policies. Amery, in the House of Commons, notoriously quoted Oliver Cromwell in demanding that Chamberlain step down following the failure of the Norway campaign: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”6
A short time later, in May 1940 as France was falling to the Germans, it was Winston Churchill who outmaneuvered Halifax and the liberals on the British War Committee, carrying the day and in turn committing the British to a total war against the Germans rather than settling for what Churchill viewed as a humiliating bargain.7
Leadership of the Lincoln or Churchill type is not restricted to democratic states or great victories either. While there is an enormous [body of] literature describing the role that Germany’s offensive military doctrine played in the escalation of the crisis leading to World War I,8 Germany’s military policy flowed from the top. Kaiser Wilhelm II authorized the rapid mobilization strategy that helped lead to the rapid escalation of the July 1914 crisis. The Kaiser also made the final decision to mobilize the German army in the days following the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.9
Kaiser Wilhelm II fits the profile of a leader predisposed to aggression, arising from a background in the military that did not include combat experience, which taught him to trust in his expertise and instincts as a military grand strategist—but without experiencing the horrific downsides of war.10 Along with childhood experiences that predisposed him towards risk-taking and insecurity fueled by resentment of his peers,11 Kaiser Wilhelm II illustrates well one of the kinds of leaders most likely to initiate and escalate international conflict.
Leaders also make critical national decisions like whether to pursue key military technologies such as nuclear weapons. Prior experiences in rebel and revolutionary movements make leaders more likely to pursue nuclear weapons than one might expect.12 Leaders with prior rebel experience are acutely aware of how tenuous their hold on government is—and even the contingency of national sovereignty.
1 (Lee 1988, 89) 2 (Bruni 2000) 3 (Kagan and Kristol 2004) 4 There are some that disagree, arguing that the same factors that led Bush to support war against Iraq would have driven a President Gore to declare war as well. See (Harvey 2011). 5 (McPherson 2003) 6 (Louis 1992) 7 (Lukas 1991) 8 (Van Evera 1984) 9 (Mommsen 1990) 10 (Lebow 1981) 11 (Lebow 1981) 12 (Fuhrmann and Horowitz Forthcoming)