Yes, it is those leaders who are able to do the most good in the face of steadfast opposition, that are able to reach across divides, that are the ones who are genuinely progressive. Eventually though, because politics still has a strong tradition of stilettos in dark alleyways, they find themselves overwhelmed. I think that is what happened to Jimmy Carter and, to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton - although I would not argue with anybody who said he was the architect of his own downfall.

Thatcher certainly changed the political landscape in the UK, and we are still feeling the noxious effects of her political philosophy. I think she was reactionary in its truest sense, far more visceral than previous Tory leaders, and far more vicious. She really had only one item on her agenda - destroy the Welfare State, and she set about that with great relish and was ably supported by a hand-picked team of the like minded.

Johnson ? I remember early on, when he was Foreign Secretary, that he was in a press conference with John Kerry. A few minutes in, an American journalist called him a liar. Kerry simply did not know where to look. Johnson waffled. Everybody else was clearly awed by the journalist's chutzpah and were all of the same opinion. That is Johnson.

Harry Marks wrote:. . .
I don't think I understand how effective leaders, among whom I count FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, and perhaps Carter, Reagan and Clinton, manage to combine an inner sense of personal effectiveness, a feeling that they are the right person for enunciating effective principles and then putting them in practice, with a genuine commitment to the public good. My first approximation is a guess that the feedback process between good policy and winning politics, in which effective choices are shored up by rhetoric that appeals rationally to the public good, requires that both Trumpian determination and Warrenish determination be combined in a way that can be made sense of.

I have my doubts that any of the current Democratic candidates has a strong gut sense of that need for connecting the public good to people's self-interest, but I like the instincts of Buttigieg, Seth Moulton and Jay Inslee. Moulton is too young and projects misplaced self-assurance, but he and mayor Pete will be forces on the political scene over the next 20 years. . . .

Great post, Harry. I think this could be an op-ed piece published in a major newspaper. You're a gifted writer and you have an economic background that gives you much credibility.

I fear that many Americans choose not to understand that a good president is ultimately a study in contradictions. They have to skirt that fine line between appealing to most of the people most of the time—saying the right things to appeal to their base while not being anathema to moderates and those in the opposite camp. Trump doesn't even try to appeal to the masses; he represents only his base. And, yet, we live in divisive times when that may be the only way to get elected. We have to choose between extremes. The moderates no longer matter. The centre cannot hold. Perhaps that's why we don't have an FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy or Johnson waiting in the wings.

I doubt many people are completely torn in this election! Republicans want Trump. If Democrats were disciplined strategic chess players, we would unite for the nominee, but we are not. Despite the manifest risks of a second term for Trump, too many Dems will say "My choice was disrespected and didn't win the nomination, therefore I will not vote."

LanDroid, I agree completely. The Democrats are not going to stand a chance unless they unite very soon.

And I'm going to create that Arthur C. Clarke forum right now.

I am a late comer to this thread, but after watching part of Thursday night's debacle (or was that a debate?) by the secdon round od Democratic candidates.... I am no supporter of Trump, but unless the Dems can stop sniping at each other, and present a united front, be may be faced with four more years of him. And no, I do not think an impeachment would work. Remember, it is the Senate who tries the case, and it looks to be firmly in the hands of the Republicans.

It's only natural politics for so many same-party rivals to winnow the competition. I saw only the second round of the forums. It seemed that most of the candidates were trying to show their liberal/left cred, and that only a couple were positioning themselves as moderate alternatives to Trump.

I am in total agreement that the dems need to entirely unite in support of whom ever it is that ultimately earns the nomination for the party. I’m inclined to think that 2020 will be different from 2016 in that regard. PSfB has been doing his best to unite the opposition. The Dopey Donnie’s are the great uniters, that’s not to say that PSfB’s is a guaranteed one termer. It’s a very real possibility that PSfB will get re-elected. 2018 was a blue wave where it was possible to do so. I’m inclined to think that that wave will continue.

In general the Democratic message isn’t to far removed from that of their convention in 2016, which by the way was great messaging, the baggage was Hillary, who by the way I have developed an admiration for. So the challenge is not so much ideological as it is presentation, in particular, the personality who will lead the party.

For me, It is hard to imagine loosing a personality fight with Dopey Donnie but the way the national worm has turned it is as I said, “a very real possibility PSfB gets re-elected”. He is the first president to step into North Korea, that is an historical photo-op.

I didn’t mind what I witnessed with the two nights of Dem “debates” We had the opportunity to witness their individual personalities in a highly competitive and I imagine a stressful situation. It was revealing and helpful in separating the weaker personalities pure and simple.

I know who I don't want and so all the dems have to do is choose someone and that person has my vote. I know it seems shallow but we can't have four more years of Donald--we simply can't.