Re Alcibiades:
He seems to me, to be a historical figure, a lot like Nixon and Clinton. He loved power, and the exercise of power, above all else. He had no fixed principles, no fixed allegiences. He was willing to destroy anyone, ally with anyone, say anything, to hold onto power. He was slippery, clever, facile. His tactics were superb, but his strategy was flawed by hubris and inconsistency. At the end of their careers, they are universally seen as amoral.
<This you are asking is tricky; for even if someone decides that it is necessary to war on those doing the just, he would not admit it.>
Great line.
Citizens should assume their leaders are like Alcibiades. We should assume the real reasons are probably not the reasons given. Only someone of great moral character, a Washington or a Lincoln (or a Powell?) deserves to be followed unquestioningly. For everyone else, for almost every leader, they should have to make their case, and make it in public and in detail, and convincingly. All too often, leaders get away with saying, "trust me", "I can't give the details, for national security reasons", "the enemy is so evil, only war will work". |
