(3 of 3)
Perhaps it is the nations on the brink of economic and political maturity who might benefit most from quiet, competent management, while the advanced nations will soon again be in need of soul-stirring leaders. True, the acceptance of a savior figure implies a certain distrust of the normal means and instruments of government. In stable countries, what is needed today is a new kind of political giant who can make his compatriots realize that explosive social problems are more dangerous to a nation than an armed enemy beating at the gate. Walter Lippmann, among others, believes that Nixon is the unglamorous kind of leader necessary to reduce the overextended American military presence abroad; withdrawal, Lippmann notes, is an unexciting job. But it can be argued with equal logic that a man of extraordinary persuasion may be needed to make a Viet Nam settlement that is short of victory palatable to a proud nation.
By definition, a leader leads; but even the charismatic leader is himself led, in the broadest sense, by those he governs. He is molded as much as he molds, and cannot be too far ahead of, or too far away from, the popular will. It is beyond argument that the U.S. today has no definable popular will, no clear sense of purpose. The time may come when it will have, or need to have, one. Before there can be a crusade, there have to be, after all, crusaders. Before there can be a Moses, adds Political Scientist Sidney Hyman, "there must be a people of Israel who want to get out of Egypt." What ever happened to charisma? It is waiting—not for the man, but for the purpose.
* From the Greek verb charizesthai, "to favor," the term was originally applied to religious prophets who could demonstrate their favor in the eyes of God or Providence.