[lit-ideas] Re: The American Civil War, why and how it was fought
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:15:31 +0100 (BST)
Lawrence, excuse my stepping into this thread, which has several interesting
strands: the what-ifs of this apparent crucible for future developments, that
the casus belli was not slavery (it's been elsewhere suggested that slavery was
brought it as a casus for strategic more than principled reasons - to keep
anti-slavery outside states, like Britain, from supporting the South), and
assessment from the POV of the military historian.
Of particular interest is the theme of failures of leadership, and what seems
to support an old Billy Connolly argument that the first way to reform politics
is to find out who wants to be politician and then ban them for life from
politics (of course, we know they would dissemble to get round any such ban;
and some good candidates would be banned): in the Civil War you almost seem to
suggest a like ban in terms of military leadership might have ensured victory
for the side that adopted it:-
>If either side had leaders who didn’t exceed their capabilities and would
submit to their more competent compatriots it would have won in in a
very short period of time.>
This theme is of pressing contemporary relevance given how power is distributed
in our societies and how tenuous are often the controls over than power.
Currently we seem, both politically and economically [to say nothing of many
other spheres where failings cannot at least produce wars or economic
catastrophe], to suffer from failures of leadership in a way that goes way
beyond us 'getting the leaders we deserve' - incompetent or barely competent
narcissists push themselves to the front of the queue when 'leadership' roles
are being distributed and we suffer the results. This kind of failure of
leadership seems widespread in our society and, ballot box aside, leaders in
many fields seem to be able to use their position to shield themselves from
their being removed from leadership even where that leadership has failed:
moreover, such failings also have a corrosive affect on the good-will and
energy of those subject to such leadership.
Crowbarring in the obligatory Popper reference: P somewhere suggested we would
be better off with a political culture where a politician would gain support,
rather than lose it, through an honest detailing of their failings in policy
and administration - indeed gain more support from detailing such mistakes than
would be gained by proclaiming successes; yet I recall a politically minded
friend regarding this suggestion as bizarre, which indicates how far even
intelligent people see politics as an inevitable game of 'never admit mistakes
(unless it would be a strategic mistake not to do so)'. [It seems to me this
approach may be distinguished, at least in principle, from 'always admit
mistakes (unless it would not be strategic to do so)'].Insofar as it is correct
that we would not respond favourably to a more honest and self-critical
politician, perhaps we do get the politicians we deserve.
But among the distinct issues these failings of leadership raise:- one is how
such leaders, especially the narcissistic type, may be most blind to their own
failings (which therefore go uncorrected), and this is a failing that cannot
easily be laid at the door of the public, even one assumed to respond better to
'success-talk' than 'failure-talk'. One might think education would produce
properly self-critical individuals - but we must all have striking experience
of highly educated people who see facing their failings as an affront to their
highly educated status: that is, that a pernicious kind of intellectual
dishonesty and dogmatism can go hand-in-hand a high level of intellect and
education. A root problem is surely than the desire for a leadership role is
often linked with a desire for status, and a desire for status is often
antithetical to a properly self-critical approach to life and its problems.
Apart from being perhaps another striking example of this phenomenon, which is
perhaps too little studied and understood given its potentially and actually
calamitous impact, are there any useful lessons the Civil War throws up as to
how failures of leadership might be averted or mitigated? [Short of "the great
leader laid low...killed outright by his own men", per Dylan's great Civil War
song "'Cross the Green Mountain".]
Donal
Plymouth
Other related posts:
