A TIME 100 Symposium

  • Share
  • Read Later
Tim Sloan / AFP / Getty

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

(15 of 17)

KEARNS-GOODWIN: You know, just to follow with what you're saying, I think this goes back to the question earlier about semantics. I do think we have to distinguish between people in power and true leaders. It seems to me the difference between a leader and a person who's in power — and this gets to the good, bad guy stuff — is that what we might define as a true leader is somebody who appeals to the better instincts as Lincoln once said, the person who somehow able to make people do the kinds of things you just described, to maybe sacrifice some of their individual instincts in the greater good so that the entire country is benefitting versus a Hitler or a Stalin who are people of power, have an influence on their time, but often appeal to the baser instincts as certainly Hitler did as well, bringing out the kind of anti-Semitism, bringing out the fears, bringing out the worst side of human nature. And, so, you can say that both have influence, the people of power and the leaders. But if we want some coherence we have to give to the definition of leader something that has a different value to it, I think.

ROSE: [unintelligible].

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think the definition of leader would have to be a religious figure because I think religious figures transcend any State, national political boundaries that all of you panelists have talked about. My question is, though, touching on the Governor's point, that American ideal of individualism, something that Robert Bellows Habits of the Heart touches on, is that, is our individualism going to keep us from voting a religious figure like the Pope as becoming person of the century? Are we, as Americans, afraid, are we holding that separation of Church/State too near and dear to our hearts to nominate someone like the Pope, who I think we could talk about when we spoke of Castro. The Pope, of course, is going to come up. He played a key role in Cuba's most recent history. So, I would like to know what the panel has to say to that?

CUOMO: I'm for the Pope.

[Laughter]

ROSE: Thank you, thank you all.

RICE: I don't think that there's any doubt that Americans are a bit nervous about the conflation of religion and politics. And it, it comes through in all kinds of ways. And it was, in part, when I responded to the governor, there is a sense in which, well, perhaps Americans need to look to their political leaders for certain kinds of deep questions. And I actually think most Americans look to their minister for that or to their religious beliefs for that. But I do think that there are some religious figures who have had such a powerful impact on the politics. I would, by the way, put Martin Luther King in that category as a religious figure who had powerful political draw and I would agree about John the 23rd, I think an extremely important impact on how Catholics and non-Catholics viewed each other and really a breaking down of sectarianism in religious life that may be more important than anything else that we're talking about.

ROSE: One last question from the audience and I will come to your [unintelligible].

AUDIENCE MEMBER: On the same kind of note, how important do you think it is that an individual be able to transcend the boundaries of the category of leader and revolutionary? For example, someone like Mother Theresa was not only a leader but she was also a thinker, she was an inspiration, and she was a hero to many people.

RATHER: Well, I think it's very important. I think it's one of the tests we apply or trying to apply when we whittle down the list. Some of the debates here today have been on that very point. And my suspicion is when we get down to the person of the century it will be someone who transcended politics, statesmanship or, for that matter, even in a narrow sense, religion.

KRISTOL: She was a saint and will officially be declared a saint one of these days and it's nice to have a saint in one's century. On the other hand, the impact will not be seen for, I suspect another century or two. But I want to propose a name for the most influential thinker of the 20th century.

ROSE: Thinker?

KRISTOL: Thinker.

ROSE: All right.

KRISTOL: The ones whose ideas have dominated not our politics, but everything else but our politics and that's Sigmund — Freud. The idea of sexual liberation comes from Sigmund Freud. The idea that repressive, repression of sexuality leads to character deformation comes from Sigmund Freud. The idea of progressive education and the unleashing of something called creativity comes from Sigmund Freud. Our popular culture derives from Sigmund Freud. Now, he has subverted, I think, more institutions in our lifetime than any other —

[Laughter]

KRISTOL: — single thinker. Now, of course, he, in his later years, he modified his views but no one pays attention to his later writing. And he, himself, had thought he was helping mankind. He was a compassionate man.

KEARNS-GOODWIN: He wasn't so great about women, either.

KRISTOL: Well, with his conventional Viennese views about women but he really shaped — I mean you can't watch a [unintelligible] sitcom, you can't watch an afternoon show on television without seeing Sigmund Freud there.

[Laughter]

RATHER: Well, I wont say in the same way from — have we mentioned Albert Einstein?

ROSE: No.

RATHER: I don't think so and I don't think any discussion of —

ROSE: I mentioned nuclear technology.

RATHER: Influential person of the century can go. I don't think it can without discussion of Sigmund Freud, dislike him as we may, with Albert Einstein, a much more likable person. You can certainly make an argument that, that Einstein his thought in some ways the 20th Century began with Albert Einstein. You can make the case again with Albert Einstein and his thought has permeated this century and does bode to go well into the next and the, the one beyond.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17