RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 29, 2020 14:07:26 GMT -8
His leadership was based more on his personality than his competency.. Then absolutely the same could be said of John Kennedy. His body of work as president is almost nonexistent, and his personality flaws were numerous, from his sex addiction to his dependence on drugs. But he had a way of captivating people that at the same time comforted them and energized them. FDR did the same. Kennedy didn't have the time to confirm he was incompetent, FDR did. Being assassinated allowed Kennedy to be held up as a great leader without the baggage of it being proven that he made bad decisions. Kind of like when Obama was given the Nobel peace prize at the beginning of his first term. All he ended up doing after 8 years was prove that he didn't deserve it. It is better for the country when Democrats are lauded for their potential as opposed to actually letting them run things. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 29, 2020 14:47:52 GMT -8
With all due respect, RSM, I think your Tom Brady logic is kicking in again. For 13 years, FDR comforted and reassured this nation through the Great Depression, and led the effort to defeat global fascism. For three years, Kennedy screwed a lot of women. To imply that FDR was not a great leader and Kennedy was is just plain wrong. The great redeeming value of Camelot was allowing people to believe that things could be better. FDR did that times ten.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 29, 2020 23:08:50 GMT -8
We are getting into the definition of "good" or "great" again.
If you are defining a "good leader" as someone who can continually lead a group of people through thick & thin, then yes, FDR was a good leader. He made horrible decisions and set horrible precedents, yet had the ability to keep his followers. That shows leadership ability.
I am looking at "good leader" as someone who accomplishes good for the people they are leading. FDR didn't. He made them feel good, but he failed miserably at bettering the country. He was like a parent who inadvertently poisoned their child over & over, yet who was loved by the child nonetheless. FDR made millions of peoples lives worse for longer than was needed, but like a scam artist, was able to convince people that he was actually helping them.
It is interesting that you consider FDR a good leader when he failed miserably at his job, but made people feel good, while at the same time deride Trump for being a bad leader when his accomplishments are great but his bedside manner sucks. It is potential versus results. Like many Mater Dei fans, it looks like you are choosing the former to define greatness.
|
|
