Chapter 18 9. On stage

Insights into Leadership "Only great men can do great things," de Gaulle wrote. "They are great because they aim at great things." Successful leaders have strong wills themselves and know how to inspire enthusiasm in others.The leaders in this book are superior to others and have successfully imposed their will on history.They are people who matter.It's not because of what they want, but because they are determined to do something.It is extremely important to distinguish between those who know power and those who exercise it.Hope is negative, determination is positive.Followers want to achieve something, leaders are determined to create performance.As F. Scott Fitzgerald said, there are differences among the very rich, and I have found that there are different people in power in great countries.To win a power struggle, it has to be someone special.After winning, power itself makes a further difference.Power does not belong to the honest man on the street, nor to the neighbor next door.

Some of the most insightful questions I've come across in the past when it comes to being president have to do with the implications of power.The most irritating thing is asking repeatedly, "Isn't it fun to be president?" John J. McCloy told me that he had a conversation with Henry L. Stimson.Stimson is familiar with nearly all the presidents of the first half of this century.McCloy asked Stimson who was the best president in terms of organizational skills and conscientiousness.After some thought, Stimson unexpectedly replied that William Howard Taft was the most able and conscientious man.But the problem with Taft was that he didn't like power.Who likes power, McCloy asked?Stimson replied: Two Roosevelts.

Adenauer, Churchill, de Gaulle - they also had a great appreciation for power.To say liking rights is a kind of "fun" is to belittle and vulgarize the problem.The man who trusts his own judgment in spite of his lapses is the best, and he who is irritated by the abuse of power by petty men will be anxious, even longing, to take charge of those powers himself.Seeing others do wrong caused him even physical pain.Once he has power, he will be more interested in exercising it. To enjoy power, he must also recognize that mistakes are inevitable and be able to admit mistakes, hoping to make mistakes on smaller and not on big problems.It is only with both, an appreciation of power and an unafraid of being wrong, that the bold action required of a great leader is possible.

A leader shouldn't be a leader if he doesn't care so intensely about the issues he has to deal with that "fun" becomes irrelevant.He would do nothing and could even be a dangerous figure.He should find other time for entertainment, including seeking "fun", but he should be restrained and strictly separate "entertainment" from work. He must have a dispassionate, impersonal estimate of his work, and this applies both to substantive work and to various ceremonial activities. When people imagine being a president (or a prime minister, or a de facto king) as some sort of "fun," they may be thinking of a smiling leader in front of a cheering crowd, forgetting how much effort it takes to get there. Organize the crowd and make sure the leader smiles at the camera.One might think of superficial and ceremonial spectacle—dresses, uniformed guards, trumpets heralding the arrival of distinguished guests, airplanes, yachts, convoys, flags—but these were not intended to please the President.Like the vestments of judges, they define the title and help in the performance of their duties.A certain authority and even dignity is required.The head of state of a foreign country, especially of a small country, needs some spectacle of welcome with a sign of reverence, not so much out of respect for him personally as for the fact that he represents the country.Standing in the hot sun, you must remember the names of all members, and ensure that every detail of the ceremony is strictly carried out according to the plan. Whoever regards these as fun things has never participated in these activities .It's part of the job.

I am by no means trying to describe the presidency as a dignified misery in the self-pitying language that others have used.I fought to be president and fought to keep it.I love this position, as most leaders do, not primarily for fun. There have been tyrants throughout history who sought power for themselves.But most of the men in the highest offices--many of whom are, no doubt, great leaders--want power only to do something about it.They believe they can wield power better than others. None of the leaders I have mentioned here are singular.No one is pure without complex motives.No one claims power just for the sake of personal prominence.While some, like Sukarno, were too sensual: some, like Zhang Xiaofu, were too insensitive to the pain their policies caused.But apart from being themselves, they all have purposes beyond themselves.Every man, rightly or wrongly, believes that he is working on a great cause, and that he will be better remembered in history.

We usually use superlative metaphors when speaking of leaders.Say they climbed to the top, turned the tide, and foresighted.We often refer to talks between heads of government as summits.During World War I, Churchill wrote an unsent letter when he was in crisis at Glibolu.In his letter, he asked the foreign secretary not to "be behind developments." Some leaders are indeed above their contemporaries.In general, he says, superlative metaphors are especially apt.They should rise above worldly views and not be limited to what is in front of them.They should stand on top of the hill overlooking everything.

Some people live mainly in the present, are indifferent to the past, and do not understand the future.Some people linger on the past.Very few people have the skill of applying the past to the present, and manage to make themselves see the future.Great leaders have this skill.As Bruce Caton described Lincoln: "Occasionally, to Lincoln, the sky did not reach the horizon, and beyond it he saw shadowy figures in motion." As military strategists, both de Gaulle and MacArthur were able to look forward. De Gaulle, in his objection to relying on the Maginot Line, asked: what would happen if the enemy could not be attracted into the separation zone?MacArthur conducted amphibious operations on the islands that Japan had come to fortify, leaving aside the islands that Japan had already fortified.

The above events are examples of thinking in terms of this war, the technical situation at the time, while others think in terms of the previous war.In response to the weakness of the Maginot Line, mobility is the key, which is also the key to MacArthur's Pacific strategy.What is obvious in retrospect today was not so at the time.Great leaders are those who first see the obvious in retrospect, and only in retrospect.They have both willpower and authority, and use it to move their country forward.De Gaulle in the 1930s did not have that kind of authority, but he showed these characteristics at that time, which may be crucial for him to gain authority later.In the forties, MacArthur had this authority.If de Gaulle had had this kind of authority earlier, and Churchill had this kind of authority in Britain, then the history of Europe might not have been like this, and there might not have been a Second World War.In the thirties, de Gaulle and Churchill were visionaries - sadly Europe hadn't gone the hard way before realizing they were right.

Theorists like to think of power in the abstract.Leaders know better than that, and power makes them face reality.Professors can gallop in absurd and difficult subject areas, but those who hold power must keep their eyes firmly on the conclusions, influences, and effects, and they must deal with specific issues. "While America's playwrights shaped America's self-understanding on screen and television, they were also interested in power and satirized high-ranking officials—whether they were military, business, or political figures.A high-ranking official can't be seen as staid, stupid, and blunt as he is on a dizzying, reverie-inspiring coaster, traversing a world of fantasy.He cannot act as if he lives in a false or ideal world, and he has to deal with the imperfections of the real world.He seemed indifferent to the suffering around him, it seemed.In fact, he is not indifferent to the maladies, he has to be personally concerned with those things that really help to alleviate them, even if they are gradual and drama-free.Hollywood can do the posturing, but senior officials need to do the real work.

In the exercise of strategy and state governance, power means life and death, prosperity and poverty, luck and tragedy for thousands or even millions of people.No one in power can forget this, though sometimes he does so on purpose.Power can provide opportunities to make and move history in different directions.For those who understand this, there are few pleasures like power.Those who seek happiness will not get power, and if they have it, they will not use it well. An eccentric observer once remarked that a man who likes laws and sausages need not pay attention to how laws are made and sausages are made.

Likewise, we admire what our leaders achieve but are often blind to the methods by which they succeed.The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is often told to elementary school children.Moralist Xie Wilson's "open contract, open to achieve" theory.Buried in armchairs are pompous pundits who demand that leaders "stand by principles, never compromise, be politicians and not be politicians". In this real world, politics is compromise, and democracy is politics.A leader must deal with the people and the country as they are, not with the ideal people and the country.It can be seen that the qualities that should be possessed as leaders do not need to be tried to imitate children-unless they are wanted to be leaders. When evaluating a leader, when it comes to his behavior characteristics, the key is not whether these behaviors are attractive, but whether they are useful.Cunning, arrogance, pretense—may not be attractive in other situations, but for a leader, they may be necessary. He needs the cunning to knead the various groups of conflicting interests into the ever-changing alliances that governing requires.A certain amount of ego is also necessary to make a proper impression on the public.In order to win on key issues, a certain kind of pretense is sometimes required.Long before he was recognized, de Gaulle confided privately that he believed independence was Algeria's only option.While Roosevelt talked about the United States not being involved in the war, he was planning for the US military to participate in the war. A leader should be ahead, ahead of public opinion, but not too far ahead.While trying to rally the public around him, he often has to hide his hand, revealing too early and paying the price for the game.The statesman, de Gaulle wrote, "must know when to pretend and when to be frank... He finds himself entrusted with carte blanche only after a thousand tricks and solemn promises." He also emphasized, "Every A man of action has his fair share of selfishness, pride, toughness, and cunning. But he will be forgiven—indeed, it will be considered noble if he can make it a means to a great end." There are aspects of leadership qualities that are generally not appreciated, and not only in politics.I've known leaders in business who were as ruthless as politicians, and leaders in religion and academia who conspired, deceived, and manipulated like Washington bureaucrats.In fact, people who have gone into government from academia and back to academia often say that competition and strife in universities are more vicious and despicable than in government.Academia is more hypocritical, let alone holy. But, no matter in which field, the great moral question is actually a question of limits.Those who were extremely selfish were summarily dismissed, no matter what particular form of self-interest was employed, be it brutalizing an opponent or putting on a sanctimonious posturing.Those who wear the cloak of virtue to torture others and are good at washing themselves, those nobles who sit on the ground and rob with dignity, are as contemptuous as the robbery nobles in the business world.White-collar and blue-collar are not a sign of morality, nor is a priest's collar a sign of morality. Rivalry in politics attracts more attention than in business, education, or journalism, not because politics is more competitive but because two areas where competition is more open are sports and politics.In other areas, the competition is equally fierce, but more hidden.From my own opinion, which I also think is biased, the competition is more noble when the stakes involve government policy, or even big questions of national survival, bets such as the share of sales of a particular brand of cereal or whether radio or television broadcasts will be The competition is less noble in the welcome investigative battle.I have found many times that the same commentators who are playing the simulcast game become hypocritical when it comes to judging us. One of the most familiar arguments in the field of popular philosophy is that being right in the end justifies the means.Sometimes the talk is profound, but most of the discussion is superficial and silly. It is absurd to claim that the rightness of the end justifies any means, nor is it equally absurd to say that other means, which would otherwise be unacceptable, are now required by a great end.Those means can never justify it.The cost to humanity of defeating Axis aggression in World War II was staggering—tens of millions killed, maimed, or starved to death—but the goal justified the cost.It would have been worse had Hitler not been fought or the war lost. At any given time, a leader must weigh the consequences: this is second nature to the leader.He cannot be bound by arbitrary rigidity: nor can he be bound hand and foot by those who do not take responsibility under very different circumstances. Neither the means nor the ends alone can be used as a measure of leadership.Without a great plan, you will not be at the forefront. Leadership must serve a purpose. The nobler the purpose, the greater the potential image of the leader.But purpose alone is not enough.He must be successful, and there must be a way of achieving lofty goals to guarantee success.He must resort to means that detract from or bring dishonor to this end.If not, his career and his history will be doomed. We call Abraham Lincoln a great idealist, and he certainly deserves it.But he is also a clear-headed pragmatist, a full-fledged politician.His pragmatism and political savvy made his ideals come true.As a politician, in essence, as a patron, he acts completely aboveboard.As a pragmatist, he liberated only the southern states and not the frontier states that remained within the United States. けThe pump basket presents NSu?nbsp; two goals, he violates the law, interferes with the constitution, grabs power arbitrarily, and tramples on individual freedom.He justified this as necessary. In 1864, explaining why he had trampled on the Constitution in a letter, he wrote: My oath to uphold the Constitution imposes upon me the duty to preserve the government, and the country, by all means necessary, one of which is that of this country. The fundamental law - the Constitution.If the country ceases to exist, can the constitution still be preserved?In general he said that both life and limb must be preserved.But people often amputate limbs in order to save lives, and never give up life in order to save limbs.In my opinion, some measures that were originally illegal or inconsistent with the Constitution have become indispensable to safeguard the Constitution from the perspective of safeguarding the country.Rightly or wrongly, I think that was the reason, and still do. More than forty years ago, Max Lerner wrote an excellent preface to Machiavelli's work.In the preface, Lerner suggests one reason why we "still shudder a little at hearing Machiavelli's name": we recognize that the reality he describes is indeed reality; , not to act professionally... Machiavelli confronts us today with the dilemma of how to adapt democratic means and democratic concepts to the demands of the world.In this world, unprecedented power politics dominates the field of diplomacy and the power struggles of domestic oligarchs. It's hard to dispute Lerner's conclusion: Let's get one thing straight: As principles, ideals and morals are important in politics, but as means they are almost powerless.The successful politician is an artist, concerned with the nuances of public sentiment, aware of similarities in ways of working, of gauging the tactics of his opponents, and of the hard work of uniting his side through compromises and concessions.The Reformers were often successful in raising public morals close to some ethical standard, but as politicians they never succeeded. It's often said that the key to success in any field, including politics, is "getting your spirits up," yet most of the great leaders I've known were good actors, although only de Gaulle candidly admit this.Like the great stage performers, they play their public roles so well that they actually become part of the characters they themselves create. "Zhang Xiaofu used exaggerated language and had his own plans.Similarly, Charles de Gaulle also had his own considerations when counting the various symbols of French greatness.Each makes up for the deficiencies of their respective countries in different ways.Zhang Xiaofu pretends to be domineering, and De Gaulle plays the arrogant feudal lord, and both play psychological tricks.Although the two have their own plans, they are not hypocritical.Khrushchev was a villain; de Gaulle was defiant, Zhang Chengfu was rude; de ​​Gaulle was a passionate patriot, a Frenchman who believed his country was great.To play a role successfully, it is important to fit the role. Adolf Hitler was the most demagogic politician of the twentieth century.With his tongue, he could fascinate men, inciting insane hatred, terror, and patriotism in millions.If de Gaulle had the same goals as Hitler, would he have done the same thing?No, de Gaulle's great power, his appeal, was largely based on his moral authority; one cannot imagine de Gaulle inciting a mob to commit murder any more than he would strip naked in public.He succeeded because his characteristics suited his role: bringing together the best of France. Some great leaders try to hide their humanity, while others flaunt it and even exaggerate it.In terms of style, there is a huge difference between de Gaulle and the lustful Lyndon Johnson. De Gaulle is arrogant and arrogant, while Johnson is energetic and lively.Yet each proves in his own way that he is capable, partly because, in a certain sense, each is indeed greater than his whole life.Johnson, "Therapy" is legendary, it is both hyperbolic and real.Like George Washington, de Gaulle was always huddled in a cocoon of silence.Those whom Johnson tried to persuade found himself surrounded by Lin Qigong. No one can become a significant leader without a strong will, or a strong self-confidence.It's become fashionable lately to hide confidence as if it doesn't exist and replace it with outward modesty.However, I have never met a significant leader who was not an egoist.Some of them like an air of modesty, but none of them are modest.Humility is a gesture, just as MacArthur's corn shaft pipe is a display, and Churchill's swagger is a gesture.If a person wants to control the various forces that a leader must deal with, then he must believe in himself and treat himself in the way a leader should treat himself.He has to believe in his cause.If you don't believe in yourself, you can't convince others to believe in him. In 1947, a critic of Charles de Gaulle in France said to me: "The emperor has a direct telephone line. When making various decisions, all the things to do Just get on the phone and get instructions directly from God. "Leaders who succeed in influencing history with their own will, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but never indecisive. They trust their instincts. They also gather the opinions of others, but act on their own judgment .The leaders covered in this book made mistakes, but they were extremely confident that if they followed their dreams and followed their instincts, they would be roughly right most of the time. They never doubted They stand at the highest point: because they are the best suited to their office. That is why they will not give way to the second rate. A leader's ear must sometimes be trained to harmonize with the voices of the people. To exercise power is to exercise this coordination.As he becomes more accustomed to the significant consequences of his own decisions, the leader becomes more comfortable making those decisions and is prepared to bear the consequences of his own mistakes rather than the consequences of others' mistakes. A leader may experience great pain in deciding what to do.Few of the successful leaders spend more time fretting over their decisions after they've made them, bemoaning whether they were the right ones.In trying to end America's involvement in Vietnam, the most difficult decisions for me to make were often those last ones.When the advisers involved in these decisions privately doubt the rightness of those decisions after the fact, I always say, "Remember the lesson of Rotter's wife, don't look backward." To wear down the spirit.The only way he can give his full attention to the decisions to be made tomorrow is by firmly putting yesterday behind him. This is not to say that he should not learn from his mistakes, but that when he has time to think about them, he should adopt an analytical rather than passive guilt attitude towards mistakes.De Gaulle's years "in the field", Adenauer in prison and a monastery, Churchill's downfall, de Gaspery in the Vatican library - they all had time to reflect and made the most of it opportunity.I have found that my most precious years have been as Vice President and President, when I can detach myself from the center of events and look back and look forward with more deliberation. The leaders I've known are actually very emotional, in other words, very human.Some people are as exposed as Churchill.Others, like Zhang Xiaofu, shamelessly abused their emotions.Charles de Gaulle, Adenauer, MacArthur, Zhou Silai, and Shigeru Yoshida are examples of self-restraint who hide their personal feelings when they appear in public.However, those who know them well feel a strong emotional core hidden deep within them. In learning about leaders, it is often difficult to separate the fake from the real because certain aspects of political leadership create the illusion.Churchill was a master at this.He is often an actor.For de Gaulle, mystery, honor, detachment, and acclaim were all means of statecraft to advance the cause of France. It is not a question of personality that hereditary princes often control the affections of their subjects: it is romantic hypocrisy.All around us are movie stars, swing dancers, and now TV celebrities who, under false attire, captivate the masses and buy tickets. Politicians know better than actors or filmmakers that if you annoy your audience, you will lose them.Great statesmen, therefore, are seldom dull, nor should they be.Political leaders should not only inspire the mind, but also the emotions.Unless the leader can arouse a certain amount of emotion in the people, the wisest course will fail. In dry history textbooks, we can't find a discussion about leadership qualities.To find it we must look to the spirit of man, to see what sustains and drives him, what enables him to drive and persuade.In MacArthur and Churchill we see arrogance, self-importance, self-contradictory, airs, yet they have a long-term historical perspective, brilliant and insightful; they are driven, and they drive others: their estimation of their own destiny Much of it is linked to their perception of the fate of their own country.We should also pay attention to the legends. Legends are often a clever mixture of fact and fiction, designed to deceive, to impress, to inspire, and sometimes simply to attract.But lore is an integral part of understanding leadership qualities. Certain aspects of leadership qualities are common across all fields—business, athletics, the arts, academia.But there are aspects that are peculiar to the political process, or at least more prominent. Prestige in itself is not a leadership quality, and neither is excellence.You don't need to be a leader to achieve excellence in one area.A writer, painter, or musician can make art without leadership.Inventors, chemists or mathematicians can also perform their talents in isolation from the outside world.Political leaders must inspire followers.Great ideas can change history, but only the power can be guaranteed by the rule of law. Likewise, "great" leaders are not necessarily good people.Adolf Hitler inspired a nation.Joseph Stalin exercised power brutally and effectively.Ho Chi Minh became a national hero for millions beyond Vietnam's borders.Good guys and bad guys are equally driven, equally decisive, equally sophisticated, and equally persuasive. Leadership qualities are themselves morally neutral in that they can lead to good as well as bad. So it is not because of virtue that a great leader is above others. Others are more virtuous and less successful. The adage "good guys make it last" applies more in politics than in sports.Great leaders rise above the second-rate by being stronger, more resourceful, and with a sharper judgment that allows them to avoid fatal mistakes and to see and seize fleeting opportunities. Nor is intellectual brilliance unique to leaders.All the major leaders discussed in this book were very intelligent.Both are sharply analytical and both are deep thinkers.But they think more concretely than abstractly, and they weigh consequences rather than doctrines.A professor generally observes the world through his own values, and then rises to theory.For a leader, theory can serve as a starting point for analysis, but it is never a substitute for analysis. What are the basic qualities of a successful leader?This is the most obvious question about leadership factors and the hardest to answer, and of course there isn't just one answer. Different circumstances call for different qualities, but intelligence, daring, conscientiousness, good judgment, devotion to a great cause, and a certain charisma must all be chief qualities.In all my party campaigns, I have often said that what we have to do is to overwhelm the opposition "in work, in thought and in struggle".A great leader needs insight, forethought, a willingness to take bold and thoughtful risks, and of course he needs good luck.The most important thing is that he must analyze his opportunities decisively, meticulously and calmly, and then act decisively. He must not be like Fang Cheng, who is indecisive in meditation and "doesn't do anything because of thinking haggard".He craves action and is willing to pay for it.For a long time there has been the absurd saying that if a man is competent, he will and should be successful in office.This is not necessarily the case, nor can it be. "Bare Candidates," the untruthful expression that is mostly intellectually popular, was one of Adela Stevenson's appealing devices.If you can find me a candidate who barely makes it, I'm sure I can find you a candidate who fails.A reluctant candidate cannot afford the kind of tension an electoral campaign demands, nor can he afford the sacrifices that leaders demand: relentless personal attacks, exhausting programming, injustice malicious criticism, intolerable caricatures.Unless a man is prepared to endure all this and still campaign with undiminished zeal, he cannot have the fortitude to do his duty even if he wins the election. There is a must have that people tend to ignore.It keeps many otherwise talented would-be leaders out of the top job.Winston Churchill, describing a would-be great leader in nineteenth-century England, wrote: "He never bowed his brow, never asked for anything".In the United States, Thomas E. Dewey and Robert A. Taft, perhaps, lacked this quality to prevent them from becoming presidents. I was sitting next to Dewey at a political dinner in New York in 1952 when suddenly a slightly drunk guest patted him on the back and greeted him in a way that Dewey thought was too intimate.Dewey pushed him aside and asked me, "Who's that jackass?" The man was the owner of several of the more important tabloids in upstate New York. During the New Hampshire primary in 1952, a young girl asked Taft for her autograph.Taft declined, explaining bluntly that he would love to shake people's hands, but that he would never finish his campaign if he spent his time meeting people's signature requests.Unfortunately, the episode was picked up by television stations and played over and over in the living rooms of millions of households across the United States.As impeccable as Taft's logic was, the political consequences of the episode were devastating. A leader who is busy, who is pretentious, who is annoyed by interruptions and distractions, and who thinks he is superior may make him impatient with those he perceives as inferior.Not "tolerating stupid people" can cause trouble in three ways.First, the leader has followers, and he needs followers, many of whom have ideas that he considers stupid.Second, the people he thinks are stupid and unwilling to pay attention are not necessarily stupid.Third, leaders can learn from even fools.There must be an invisible bond between the leader and the people; if the leader shows contempt for the people, this bond may be severed.However, it must always be remembered that leaders are not ordinary people.They should not appear in the posture of an ordinary person: it will appear contrived, not only false but also undignified. People may like the neighborhood boy, but that doesn't mean electing him for president or congressman.A successful leader should not belittle the people with words, but should respect them, and must not be arrogant.He must be willing and able to "put up with fools" and show respect to those for whom he seeks support.However, he must maintain a distinctive quality that makes people respect him.If he is to gain people's confidence, he must arouse belief in him.Not only is this practice justified—if he is mediocre, he cannot be a leader—but in a democratic society this mystique of leadership is necessary. Leaders must learn not only how to speak, but also when to hold their tongues.Carlyle once said: "Silence is what makes great things happen."De Gaulle pointedly pointed out that for a leader, silence is a powerful tool. We also learn only when we listen, not when we speak. Many times I have seen political rookies arriving in Washington dazzle the press and their colleagues with their apparent ability to speak well and improvise tirades.But before long, the novelty wears off.They found that people judged them not by how they spoke, but by what they said.They were rejected for not being what the French call serious people.The most eloquent people are often the most superficial in thinking.For people who are likely to become leaders, when making choices, a reliable rule is: when things happen, talk less and think more. Churchill wrote of Lord Rosebery: "Regardless of what other people may think of democracy, it is always good to have a practical experience of its rough and scattered fundamentals. To make a politician, it is most necessary Less is participating in electoral fights." Churchill knew what it was like to win or lose, and to be roughed up in a thorny political career.他对投入选举运动的教育意义的估价是正确的。选举是"粗糙的和散乱的"，但选举对民主制度、对领导与被领导之间的相互影响来说，都是必要的。民主政治是各种集团、各种力量以及各种利益之间的极其复杂的妥协过程。领导人应该是政治家而不是政客，这种陈词滥调是贬低民主制度，是对选民的蔑视。那些高高在上的，对政治进程散布不满的权威们，从本质上讲，是真正的独裁主义者。 领导人应该走在人民的前头。在国家向何处去，为什么朝那里走以及应该采取什么步骤达到目的等问题上，他应比人民有更明确的见解。但他必须带领人民同自己一道前进。只是发号施令，但回头瞧瞧，无人跟随，毫无意义。他必须做说服工作，让人民赞同他提出的见解。在这一过程中——在胜利之前的追求中——他可了解到许多人们关注和有保留的事，人们期望和担心的事，所有这一切，作为一位领导人都是必须应付处理的。正是在这个过程中，他还会对将来不得不作出的各种妥协，得出更完善的结论。 那个高唱"坚持原则"谴责妥协的权威，实际上是要求领导人采取自我毁灭的政策。很少有领导人愿意这样做，也不应该这样做。那位权威没有看到，领导人往往不得不作出妥协，从而为明天的斗争保存自己。什么时候进行妥协，这是一项分清轻重缓急的工作。坐在扶手椅中的战略家，他们不考虑其他战事，气喘吁吁地断言：这位领导人必须参加并赢得这次战斗，必须去作战。这谈何容易。常有这样的时刻，一位承担责任的人可能会得出结论，如果他要赢得整个战争，那么某一次特定的战斗的代价是否大大了。他必须作出抉择：要打哪些战役，不准备打哪些战役，以便为未来更重要的战役，节省力量。 "民意测验"来决定自己命运的政客太多了。迷信民意测验的候选人可能会当选，但他不会是一位伟大的领导人，甚至称不上好的领导人。民意测验对摸清那些地区需要做特殊说服工作，可能是有益的。但是，谁要按民意测验来确定方针路线，那他就是忘记了作为一位领导人的作用。领导人的任务并不是听从民意测验，而是让民意测验服从自己。 成功的领导人必须知道什么时候应该战斗，什么时候应当退却，什么时候应当强硬，什么时候需要妥协，什么时候必须大胆讲话，什么时候需要缄默不语。 他必须高瞻远瞩，有一个明确的战略，有一个目标和信念。 他必须胸怀全局——看到这项决定与其他决定之间的相互关系。 他必须走在前头，但不可走得大远，以至失去自己的拥护者。 在进行竞选活动的"激烈而又紊乱的"过程中，他有机会来推动自己的拥护者前进，估磕馨阉谴枚嘣丁Ｈ绻晾使豕ケ匦氩渭泳貉〉幕埃撬赡懿?nbsp;会失去他的国家。 一位将军要有部队，但也要有一个指挥机构。一位政治领导人要有拥护者，但也要有一个组织。 对许多领导人来说，最难以接受的事情是授权问题。艾森豪威尔曾以一种简略的形式对我说过，作为一个最高长官他必须克服的最大的困难，就是学会签署一份拙劣的信件，也就是说，在一份为他起草的信件上签名，即使他很清楚，如果他亲自起草这个信件，会写得更好些。 领导人最宝贵的东西是时间。如果把时间都浪费在无关紧要的事情上，那他将遭到失败。在需要他做抉择的最重要的事情中，包括决定哪些事亲自料理、哪些事交他人去做，在这些人中，他还要选出自己愿意授权的人。领导人一定要善于挑选能干的人，摈弃那些不管出于什么理由的怠工者。格莱斯顿曾说过，当总理首要的条件是当一名屠夫。激发人们的热情可能是一位领导人所面临的最艰巨的但也是最基本的任务之一。下级人员中，出现受贿或不忠诚的情况，不难对付，但在那些工作人员忠诚、有献身精神却不称职的地方——旁边又有更适合的人——做激发工作就比较棘手。这也是领导者需要勇气把公共责任置于个人感情之上的时候。但这样做要有限度。忠诚是相互的，如果象大开旋转门那样人来人往，要保留一支忠于职守的队伍是不可能的。因此他必须搞平衡。但在搞平衡时，要防止惯性，从而使平衡变得容易些而不是改变平衡。他必须是一个屠夫，既要使他的委任授权圆满完成，又要保证他能放手作这项工作。他只有有限的时间来行使权力，必须最充分地利用它。如果他自己不是出色的屠夫，那他就要另物色一个。沃尔特·比德尔·史密斯将军有一次竟哭着对我说："我过去仅仅是艾森豪威尔的一个不太称职、无一技之长的下手。艾森豪威尔总要有一个不太称职的、无一技之长的下手"。在我的政府中，鲍勃·霍尔德曼以残酷无情而闻名，原因之一是他为我执行了许多屠夫的任务，而这些任务是我不能亲自完成的。 尤其是在涉及一个庞大的官僚机构的时候，由于其他的原因，屠夫的职能是极其重要的。我发现，一般他说，在官僚机构中，很少人的动力是出于对领导人的忠心，有些人的动力来自忠于对领导人所代表的事业。但大多数人，首先是被自身利益所推动，有的想高升争先恐后一级一级地向上爬；有的谋求保障，保住他现有的工作。一个机构可能出现的最糟糕的亭是它提供了过多的安全保障。人们逐渐松松垮垮，机构的效率越来越低。为了保持士气，需要有各种切实的刺激。很明显，偶而刺激一下，会使部队振作，会为每个机构提供一剂它所需要的兴奋剂。归根结蒂，委任授权决不能代替领导人对问题的透彻思和对重大问题亲自作出决定。他可以而且必须把做事的责任授权别人，但决不能把作决定的职责委托别人。这是人们选出他并要他亲自做的事。如果让手下的工作人员替他思考，那他就成为一个追随者，而不是一个领导人。 在物色人马时，保守主义的领导人比自由主义的领导人面临的问题更严重。一般他说，自由主义分子更要求有政府并渴望成为掌管政府的成员。保守主义分子不大希望有政府，也不想参与政府。自由主义分子要求管理其他人的生活。保守主义分子愿意独善其身。大学教师和学生倾向于当自由主义分子，工程人员倾向于当保守主义分子。自由主义分子自动涌向政府，保守主义分子则需要诱导和说服。由于挑选余地较小，因此保守的领导人经常不得不在那些忠诚但没有才华和富有才华但不忠诚的人之间选择——这种选择不是按个人的直觉如何，而是依据对领导人的保守主义原则的根深蒂固的献身精神。 从领导人的授权来看，有些事情相对容易些：即那些别人明显地会比自己做得好的事情。戴高乐、阿登纳和吉田茂本人都不是第一流的经济学家。他们每个人都有良知，让其他人（蓬皮杜、艾哈德和池田勇人）来掌管经济事务。 艾森豪威尔处理那封拙劣的信件，显示了一个更难抉择的事例：领导人必须把自己能做得更好的事情委托给他人，因为他不能也不应该花费这些时间。这就要有一种从重大事情中把本质的事情理出来的能力，要能自我克制，让其他人来处理重要的事情。现在的趋势是许多领导人忙于小事，因为他们不愿"签署一封拙劣的信件"。林登·约翰逊坚持要亲自选定轰炸越南的目标，就是一个恰当的例子。 认为摆到总统桌上的每件事都是重要的，从某种意义上说，这一点是可以争辩的。诚然，不重要决不会交到总统那里，但是，他不能什么事都管。起用大人物是为了决策大事，不把时间和注意力浪费在小事上，这样他就有充裕的时间，过问那些紧急的社会和经济政策问题，集中精力处理关键往的外交政策，并能摆脱眼前的紧急事务和注意中心而专心于那些非同小可的长远往问题。今天需要授权的亭，明天就不一定有必要，他应有让需要随着重点转移的灵活性。他必须有把摆到面前等待决定的事推开不管的本领，无论这些决定本身看来是多么重要，但却妨碍他处理该自己高度负责的事件的能力。 这种情况与打棒球有类似之处。许多好的击球手希望打平均数，力图以一垒打把他们的平均数进到三百。但是他们并不是那些成为报刊头条新闻或在公园中吸引成千人的有名的击球手。著名击球手雷吉·杰克逊一家，他们打得有把握；他们不追求平均数，而是争取赢得比赛全局胜利的本垒打。领导人必须安排他的生活，集中精力，头脑里只有一个压倒一切的目标，进行几场大的拼搏。这些拼搏，会使自己名垂青史。他可以安于平均数，打出一般水平。如果他拼命想把每件事都做好，那就不可能把真正重要的事情做得非常出色。他就不会出人头地。如果他要成为一位伟大的领导人，他必须把精力集中在重大的决策上。 伍德罗·威尔逊在担任总统之前，曾在一篇演说中把思想家和实干家区别开来。据我观察，在政界中，常常是思想家不能实干，实干家不善思考。最理想的人物是威尔逊这样的人。 他是一位有创见的伟大思想家，在他年富力强时，也是一位果断的实干家。总的看来，我所认识的现在已经成功的领导人中只有几个人既是思想家又是实干家。法国的哲学家亨利·伯格逊曾告诫说："象思想家那样去行动。象实干家那样去思考"。 能在思想和行动之间维持恰当平衡的时期，也是领导素质发挥得最好的时期。毫无疑问，邱吉尔、戴高乐、麦克阿瑟、吉田茂、德·加斯佩里、尼赫鲁以及周思来等都是果断的实干家，同时又是深刻的思想家。从一些对阿登纳的肤浅的评价中可能会得出结论：阿登纳是一个给人留下深刻印象的实干家，但作为一个思想家，他与其他人不是一类。事实上，了解阿登纳的人会承认，这样的评价是谬误的。他不表露知识分子的那种优越感，那些看不到这一点的人是不了解在公开外观掩盖下的这个普通人。 甚至连容易感情冲动的章晓夫，通常也思考先于行动，尽管他象勃列日涅夫一样，没有显露过哲学上或理智上的极大的深刻性。而且，领导俄国共产革命的那些人——列宁、托洛茨基和斯大林——也既是实干家，又是思想家。斯大林没有这样的名声，但研究过他的背景的人发现，他至少是一个求知欲很强的领袖。尽管如果没有他们所取得的成就，这个世界的境况也许更好些，但是这三个人仍然高居于历史名人中。 罗伯特·孟席斯曾对我谈过他怎样严格安排自己的一天：平时每天有半个小时，星期六和星期日一个小时用来读书，作为一种享受。这不是消遣，他阅读的是历史、文学和哲学。这种阅读可使他从各种报告、分析以及时事阅读的羁绊中挣脱出来，时事阅读对一个领导人来说既费时间、又劳心神。我自己虽然把一天安排得不太精确，但也坚持为这种阅读留出时间，甚至在危机时期也是这样。如果领导人要保持高瞻远瞩的能力，那他必须立足现在回溯过去。当危机最紧迫时，尤其需要这种回顾，因为这是最需要从过去看清未来的时候。在一些有志当政治领导的年青人间起他们该做些什么准备时，我从来劝他们去研究政治学。相反，我劝他们钻到历史、哲学、文学中去——去探求、去劳神费思，并开阔他们的眼界。通过阅历可以更好地了解政界或政府中的一些最出色的人和意外事件。但阅读的习惯、思考的训练、严密的分析方法、社会准则的结构以及哲学的基椽-这些是一位未来的领导人，在开始受教育时就要认真吸收并在生命的其他时间里继续下去的。 我的良师益友、已故的埃尔默·鲍勃斯特甚至在九十岁时还很机警，并有超人的记忆力。有一次我问他，为什么记得这样清楚。他回答："我是惩罚我的记忆力"。他不作笔记，而是在过了一天之后强记谈话，强记所有细节。他也提醒我说，脑子就象一条大肌肉，越锻炼，越发达，不锻炼，它就要萎缩了。 我所认识的伟大领导人中，几乎有一个共同的特点——酷爱读书。阅读不仅增强和启发智力，而且还开动和锻炼了头脑。今天那些坐在电视屏幕前昏昏然的青年，不可能成为明天的领导人。观看电视是被动的，阅读是主动的。 另一个共同的特点是，他们都是勤奋的人，是那种一天干十六小时的人。对一个领导人来说，很容易陷入工作时间过长这个最危险的陷阱。有人因此成功，但大多数人需要脱身，一阵，变换一下环境或改变一下节奏，以便在需要他们时仍然精力充沛处于最佳状态。杜鲁门去了西暗礁，艾森豪威尔到科罗拉多或乔治亚，肯尼迪去了哈尼斯港，约翰逊到了他的得克萨斯州的牧场。为此，他们都受到了抨击，但他们不应受这种抨击。一位领导人，重要的并不在于他在办公桌旁坐多长时间，或办公桌摆在什么地方，而是看他所作的重大决定是否完满。 如果一场高尔夫球游戏能使他精神愉快，那他应该撇开文件批阅工作，奔赴高尔夫球常一位领导人取得成功的幸运的因素中，机遇可能是最关键性的。 不同的文化产生了各种不同的领导人，不同的时代也产生了各种不同的领导人。很难设想迪斯雷利能在八十年代的美国赢得选举的胜利，就此而言，康拉德·阿登纳或乔治·华盛顿，也很难设想能取得成功。 有时，一个人假如早生或晚生几年，他也许会成为杰出的领导人，一位世界性的人物。我深信，乔治亚州的参议员理查德·罗素，要是在他的南方的籍贯尚不剥夺他的资格之前出现，他有可能成为迄今为止美国最杰出的总统之一。事实上，他是参议院里幕后很有影响的人物。他是林恰ぴ己惭返脑助人，经他个别指导和出主意约翰逊终于进入了白宫。在我担任参议员、副总统和总统期间，与其他参议员相比，我更重视罗素的意见。除在民权问题上，我们很少有分歧。在国内问题上，他是一个温和的保守派，在国防和外交政策问题上，他是一个强硬的有远见的实用主义者。 在另一些场合，罗素也做出了表率。他是在衣帽间里，委员会的会议室中，在私下会晤里进行指导的，他甚至很少在参议院议员席上发言，尽管当他发言时，整个参议院都洗耳恭听。 他运用得极为漂亮的并不是作实际决定的权力。而是影响；他运用这样的影响以致使它变为权力，就罗素而言，他的影响来源于其他参议员和总统对他怀有真诚的敬意，也来源于他的过细的准备工作、注重细节以及对参议院和参议员的广泛了解。 新世界的一个特点是事物以越来越加速的步伐变化着。一个国家在一个发展阶段需要一种统治着，下一个阶段可能又要求另一种统治者。这些阶段有可能接二连三地迅速到来。从领导人在历史上的影响来观察，及时下台有时可能与及时上台同样重要。 如果恩克鲁玛在加纳独立后把职权交给其他人，那他可能会作为一个英雄而光荣下台，现在也仍然是一个英雄。如果不是死亡缩短了纳赛尔的统治，那他的名声也许会比今天更大。 很有可能，戴高乐1946年退出政府是最明智的一着，这样，直到1958年召唤来临时，他在政治上仍然是无懈可击的。乔治·华盛顿知道什么时候该离职。他的拒绝竞选第三任总统确立了一个传统，一直延续到1940年，这个传统一度中断过，后来写进了宪法。林登·约翰逊1968年宣布退出竞选时，全国为之震惊。作为一个在以后四年中面临席卷全国的大风暴的人，我认为，不管约翰逊是如何憎恨退休，但在那时下台是幸运的。如果他继续执政的话，那将会遭到无情的抨击。 不同的制度需要各种不同的领导人，不同的国家有着不同的文化背景、处于不同的发展阶段，需要不同的制度。 美国在与世界的其他部分交往中一向存在一种错误趋向：以西方民主的标准来衡量所有的政府，以西欧的标准来衡量各种文化。西方民主的发展和生根经历了好几个世纪，它的道路不是笔直的或是稳妥的。欧洲的自由的发展时断时续，一个时期向前发展了，另一个时期又被推了回来——三十年代西欧部分地区及近几年的东欧都出现了这种情况。 在世界各国中，民主仍然是例外，不是普通现象、正如美国驻联合国大使珍尼·J·柯克帕特里克所指出的："实际情况是世界上的大多数政府，按我们的标准来衡量是坏政府。这些政府不是也从来不是民主的政府。民主在世界上一直是很罕见的。按我们的标准，大多数政府是腐败的"。我们必须从大多数独裁和极权统治的国家中学得更会识别事物。每个专制的统治者至少把他的一些反对者投入监狱，不管他是为剥削他的人民还是发展他的国家。但在为进行侵略而武装起来的人和竭力维护和平的人之间，在波尔波特的和伊朗国王的进步的家长式统治之间，存在着极其重要的差别。有些是好邻居，有些是坏邻居。有些人是宽厚的，有些人是恶毒的。这些差别是真实存在的，而且是重大的。 我们不喜欢专制统治，但对许多国家来说，在现阶段简直没有别的切合实际的选择。如果明天早上民主就在沙特阿拉伯或埃及降临，其后果可能是灾难住的，如何来对待民主，这些国家根本没有任何准备。坚持把为我们服务过的体制强加在不发达国家身上，对它们将是毫无益处。明知根本是不可能的，还要坚持实行民主的形式，这是最坏的自以为是的虚伪。我们应该学会少管闲事。 在新世界所发生的所有变化中，其中之一将对未来的领导问题产生更为戏剧性的影响，这就是过去阻止妇女参政的各种障碍的拆除。至今很少有妇女进入最高领导层。英迪拉·甘地、戈尔达·梅厄以及玛格丽特·撒切尔是例外而不是普遍现象。但越来越多的妇女正在进入产生领导人的队伍。竞选最高行政职务的妇女候选人，还必须克服残存的旧说法：这些职位都是男人独占的。随着有更多的妇女上升起来，这种旧的说法将会消失。 如果在1952年允许妇女占据高职的思想就发展到今天这样，那么克莱尔·布思·卢斯可能是一个强有力的副总统候选人。她有头脑，有干劲，政治上敏锐，有判断力，她是美国第一个真正想在政界中一举成名的女人。她磨练出了一种在政治冲突中短兵相接的能力，并被认为是一个死硬的反共分子。 艾森豪威尔选中我，就是因为我也有这两种特有的品质。要是当时她被选中，那么本书就写不成了，而且她还会在重要的演出中出常在1952年，克莱尔·布思·卢斯就有远见。但我相信，在本世纪结束之前，我们可能会选举一位妇女担任副总统，甚至担任总统。 乍看起来，似乎令人感到惊奇，这个时期这么多伟大领导人的年纪都那么大，但细想一下，并不奇怪。许多人都经历了"在野"的时期。他们在那一段时期中所获得的洞察力和智慧，以及他们从"在野"局面杀回来时所积聚的力量，是他们日后令人敬佩的重要原因。邱吉尔、戴高乐和阿登纳都是在我们认为正常退休年龄后，作出了最伟大的贡献。在战时，邱吉尔开始领导英国时，已六十六岁；戴高乐创建第五共和国时六十六岁，阿登纳执政，担任总理时七十三岁。戴高乐七十八岁时仍是总统，邱吉尔八十岁时还是首相，阿登纳八十七岁时仍然是总理。 二十世纪经历了一场医学革命，我们的寿命更长了，我们活得更健康了。但除此之外，鞭策伟大的领导人前进的那股干劲和耐力往往使他比那些平静地退休的人活得更长久。我们老了，因为我们听从自己老下去。因为认输、退缩、或安于懒散状态，我们变老了。那些邱吉尔、艾森豪威尔和麦克阿瑟临终时的守护人，仍然记得，即使在失去知觉后的长时间里，他们的躯体还是那么顽强地不愿屈服。伟大的领导遵从自己的规律，他们不是那种向岁月低头和屈从的人。 一位领导人有时必须团结他的人民，去从事艰难困苦的事业。正象邱吉尔在给英国人民带来"鲜血、穷苦、眼泪和汗水"时那样。更为经常的是，他必须赢得人们支持一种尚不深得人心的思想，或者战胜一股强大的知识分子赶时髦的潮流。 哲学家——神学家米歇尔·诺瓦克曾说过，今天"在这个有着迅速的普遍庞大的宣传工具的世界上，力量的平衡已经改变。 各种思想总是现实的一部分，在今天，它比现实的力量要大得多。那个靠提出思想和信条谋生的人构成的阶层，看来既不是自已非常迷恋于虚假突拿，又奇怪地披允许把这一切强加给不幸的个人"。领导人最艰苦的战斗往往不是反对其他政治运动的领导人，而是反对那些肤浅的、有破坏性的思想。这些思想充斥于广播，使最聪明的人丧失理智，使公开的讲话黯然失色。 今天，电视已改变了那种训练国家领导的方式，也使那些有希望被选为领导的人发生了很大的变化。亚伯拉罕·林肯，他长相难看，嗓子很尖，是绝不会在电视里获得成功的。他演讲时，总爱穿插一些冗长而又不连贯的轶事，这种风格在电视中也不吃香。今天鼓励的是简洁生动单刀直入的讲话，而不是冗长的说教式的比喻。 电视大大缩短了公众注意的时间间隔，它也改变了人们观察事物和事件的方法。象一剂改变头脑的药一样（从实际意义上来说它就是一种药），它歪曲了人们对现实的认识。我们在屏幕上看到的短小精悍的戏剧性事件——不管是作为娱乐，作为"新闻"，或以调查的名义取悦人的部分杂志版式——都不是生活的镜子。它们是歪曲事物的镜子。实际生活中的事件很少有这样利落的开端、中间和结尾，也不这样明显区分好人和坏人。领导人花费几周时间挥汗作出的决定，到评论员手里，只消嘴巴一动，例行公事，二十多秒钟就完事了。 在电视时代，成名有了全新的天地。一位电视演员应邀就医学问题对参议院委员会提出意见，因为他曾在受人欢迎的每周节目中扮演过医生。另一位曾塑造过编辑形象的演员，曾被请到新闻学校作专题报告。事实和幻想之间的界线已混淆得难以辨认，公众却越来越接受这种似是而非的东西。 电视是家庭里的好莱坞。它是一个幻想之国。人们越是习惯于通过电视屏幕观看世界，他们心目中就越多地装满幻想世界的形象。 有人争辩说，电视最糟糕之处是它那种无孔不入的左翼偏见。另外的人又说，最糟糕的是它使大事件庸俗化，热中于暴露丑闻，它不愿或不能上演那些沉闷单调或错综复杂的节目，或从趣味出发从公开的问题中生发出新闻来。所有这一切都可悲地助长了电视对公众辩论的歪曲。 在电视时代，民主国家在同极权主义敌人的斗争中，能否生存下来，可能仍然是一个尚待解决的问题。电视硬把各种事件纳入家庭琐事连续剧的模式，在这样做的时候，它用如此巨大的感情力量、面对那么多观众，无非是为了使理性的辩论黯然失色。电视特别愿意扑捉诸如流血的士兵或者挨饿的孩子这类戏剧性的、富于感情的场面。人们经常要在各种不同的痛苦后果中作出艰难的选择。电视把人们的注意力牢牢地集中在一种后果上，这严重地歪曲了辩论，实际上是愚弄了选举。电视以连续剧的语言那样自信地播放伊朗的人质危机，以至人们最终接受以全国挂黄缎带来代替国策。电视对越南战争的一边倒的现象，或许是一个限制我们进行多种抉择的最重大因素，以至使这场战争延长了，并最终被输掉了。 除非电视加强责任心，较准确地反映现实，否则不管哪个人，只要他想在今后的年月中负责地进行领导，就会面临非常艰难的时刻。 然而，电视确实也给领导人提供了方便，这也许是极为重要的，尤其是在危机时刻。电视使领导人直接面向人民，在每个起居室中与他们见面，在不受新闻记者和评论员干扰的情况下，把他的问题向人民提出。他只能偶而这样做，在评论员接过话筒之前，那怕是几分钟，他可以用自己的语言，解释自己对形势的看法，说服人们接受必须采取的行动方针。如果电视掌握在能熟练应用它的人手里，那就可能成为一种强有力工具。总统在危机时露面，本身就是一种内在的戏剧性的场面，这种场面稳定了群众，吸引了他们的注意力。这时，他必须尽快使观众理解他的讲话，因为一般二十多分钟左右，听众就不大耐烦了。但他确实偶而有那样的机会。 宿命论和"大人物"对待历史的研究，实际上，可能各有可取之处而不是全部正确。 历史确实有它自己的势头。当执政的"领导人"只知道用沾湿的食指伸向空中试探风向时，历史将不顾他们，继续沿着自己的方向前进。但当对未来有明确的见解并有力量来支配国家的领导人掌权时，他们可以改变历史的进程。这时历史犹如荒野中的一系列足迹，这些足迹表示一个人首先到了那里，并引导其他人也跟上来。伟大的领导人激发起激烈的争论。他们赢得了坚定的朋友，也树立了死敌。不同的人用不同的方法来看待同一位领导人，各种看法相互矛盾，或千变万化，这都不值得大惊小怪。 领导人总是在各个领域发挥作用。他是一个担任公职的人，又是一个普通的人，他在几百万人前露面，也常同他依靠治理国家的少数人打交道。这一小部分人可能看到他作为普通的人的一面，也可能没有看到过；他必须经常尽力在每个细节上做得既对广大群众有说服力，也能为内部这一小部分人所佩服。在与各式各样的选民代表接触时，盟友和政敌可能看到他的不同方面。三个瞎子和一头象的比喻，应用在人们如何观察领导人的方式上是恰当的。每个瞎子都摸到象的一部分，并由此而作出推断。同样，每个批评家、每个评论员、每个政敌、每个盟友都只接触到领导人的一个方面，并据此作出自己的推断。 萨达特援引过一句阿拉伯格言，这句格言说：一个统治者如果是公正的，那他很自然地会遭到一半臣民的反对。所有领导人都有反对者，所有人都希望由历史来证明自己是正确的。 有些人的名声在离职后增大了，有些人的名声却减小了。在历史的定论中，有时巨人变成侏儒，有时曾被贬为微不足道的小人又成为伟人。哈里·杜鲁门1953年不担任总统时遭人蔑视，但今天，他已是一位很有名气的领导人。 历史的最后定论并不是一下就作出的。它不仅要好几年，甚至要几十年或几代才会出现。领导人很少有生前就能听到这个定论的。赫伯特·胡佛是个例外。在美国历史上，没有一位领导人受到过如此激烈的中伤。在朋友众叛亲离、敌人恶毒诽谤的处境中，他终于战胜了逆境。在他的暮年，他比那些低毁者的形象更高大。他的一生说明了戴高乐最喜爱的沙夫克里斯诗句中的一个真理："只有到了晚上，才能懂得白天多么光圆烂"。 本书中所有的领导人都有自己的成功和失败，有自己的力量和弱点，美德和恶习。我们只能猜测历史学家一个世纪后将如何评价他们各自的遗产。这部分地取决于谁赢得这场世界性的斗争，谁来编写历史。但是这些领导人并没有在战斗中退缩，他们进入了竞技常正如西奥多。罗斯福1910年在巴黎大学的一次演讲中所说的：批评家无关紧要，那些数落铁腕人物怎样犯错误、实干家应在哪些地方做得更好的人也不值得考虑。荣誉属于这样的人，他真正是在竞技场上，满脸汗水和血污，他勇敢地进行斗争；他犯过错误，一再失误：因为没有错误和缺点就谈不上艰