Leadership matters, but let us remember how limited it is
The range of options available to leaders is shaped by long-term forces that the leaders themselves cannot control. At times the leaders are mere pieces of cork, lifted up or dropped down by the tide.
The Marxists used to argue that leaders have no power, they are merely pieces of cork that float on the surface of the ocean -- they can be lifted up by the high tide or they can be dropped down by the low tide, but they have no power themselves, rather, their fate is determined by the tide. And the tide, said the Marxists, was determined by the long-term evolution of technology and the forces of production, and the awakening of the working class.
I always felt that the Marxists were a bit extreme, especially on the issue of leadership, — they go too far when they say that leaders have no power. Still, it is worth remembering, the range of options available to leaders is shaped by long-term forces that the leaders themselves cannot fight. Some leaders are, famously, made great by a trend and then later destroyed by the same trend. Napoleon was made great by the birth of modern nationalism in France, he was then destroyed when modern nationalism lead to the awakening of the German and Italian states.
A woman with a church group went to see FDR in 1935. She explained the urgent need for new funding for soup kitchens, and other emergency efforts to get food to the poor. FDR replied, "You've convinced me completely, now I need you to go out there and force me to do it." FDR's point was that he himself had limited political capital, so it was pointless for progressive groups to ask him to do progressive things. Rather, he needed progressive groups to go out into the streets and build up strong institutions that could force the government to do the right thing. And to the extent that progressive change happened during the 1930s, it was because of the growing militancy and power of both labor unions and progressive church groups.
The strength of progressive movements can force conservatives to do progressive things, By contrast, when progressive movements lose momentum, even left-of-center politicians will do reactionary things. Consider President Nixon, who had to deal with the peak of 1960s radicalism. Nixon was personally a reactionary, but he was forced to put through the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, he invented the Environmental Protection Agency, he was forced to sign the War Powers Act which limited the President's control over the military; he signed dozens of progressive laws because he had no choice. But just a few years later, when labor unions were collapsing and the militancy of progressive movements had died, President Carter was forced to initiate the modern era of neoliberalism, when he began the deregulation of trucking, air travel, and multi-modal shipments. It didn't matter that Nixon was a reactionary, he was forced to pass dozens of progressive laws. It didn't matter that Carter was left-of-center, he was forced to pass dozens of reactionary laws.
There is some real sense in which leaders lack power. They are shaped by the underlying tide that occurs during their watch.
Popular history tends to promote the so-called "Great Man Theory Of History." Some of this amounts to right-wing brainwashing. Progressives need to de-program themselves. It's important to remember how much of our history is really the history shaped by subterranean forces.
I don’t mean to suggest that this issue is a simple one. What is the true influence of leadership on history? What is the limit of genius when confronted by the uprising of the masses or the inertia of the state? If I made a list of the most subtle questions in human affairs, this would certainly make the top 5. I do not think there is any easy answer.
But we can say with confidence that popular histories tend to over-state the influence of leadership, and so all of us should remind ourselves, constantly, how much those leaders were hemmed in by long-term circumstances they didn’t invent and could not change.