An article in the Economist, on Barack Obama and political courage, essentially argues that he has shown none in the course of his presidency so far. According to Lexington, “Political courage is hard to define. But you know it when you see it. The senior George Bush increased taxes and paid with his job. Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act even though he knew it would cost the Democrats the South. The much-maligned younger Mr Bush showed a moment of true grit, when he defied almost everyone and refused to leave Iraq to chaos in 2007. Maybe Mr Obama will find the same raw courage when at last he thinks it warranted. All one can say is that it has not happened yet. Meanwhile, Libya and Bahrain burn.”
On this subject, several points are worth making, the first of which is that whether an act is judged to be courageous or not very much depends on the outcome. If a president takes a difficult course of action and succeeds, it’s often called courage. If he takes a difficult course of action and fails, it’s called stubbornness.
Second, courage is not (as the Economist acknowledges) the only, or even the most important, virtue in a political leader. Prudence, restraint, and wisdom matter a great deal as well. Courage used to advance a wrong course of action can be disastrous.
That said, courage is a terrifically important virtue, including and often especially in a president. Courage is, Aristotle said, the first of the human virtues; he believed it makes all other ones possible. And however one wants to describe the Obama presidency so far, the Economist is right about this: courage cannot be counted among its chief attributes. It would be a nice virtue for Mr. Obama to cultivate sometime soon.
[...] HOWEVER ONE WANTS to describe the Obama presidency so far, the Economist is right about this: courage cannot be [...]