Efficiency as a leader includes one's ability to command respect, but it isn't limited to that. Also I wasn't just talking about leadership ability.
"The best leaders" is somewhat ambiguous. It could mean those with the best leadership skills and ability to inspire. It could mean those are most effective at getting people to follow them (not exactly the same as the last, in some situations its easier to get people to follow you than others). It could mean those most effective at implementing their programs (which requires other skills beyond just leadership) It could mean those that are most effective at meeting their end goals. And it could even include analysis about how beneficial or worthwhile the end goals are.
I'd say FDR had good leadership skills. He was also pretty effective and implementing many of his programs. I'm not so sure that he was good at leading the country to achieve his end goals, but that depends on what his end goals where. If his end goals where to lead the country out of the depression I think he did a lousy job. If his end goals where something more like "give the government greater control of the economy", then he achieved his end goals, but I would consider such goals not to be beneficial or worthwhile.
Also some command respect through fear. Yes fear is not the same as respect, some might comply just through fear, but people like Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Kim Il Sung probably even Pol Pot, commanded the respect of many followers, and some of them (Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Kim) commanded a fair degree of respect within their countries, even after they died. Not just fear but real respect. Misguided respect IMO, but that doesn't make it something other than respect.
I assume you where using the meaning of either leadership skills or something like "ability to create long lasting respect". Of course the latter is not just about ability and personal qualities but also depends on the situation, and the ideas of those who follow.
I don't think FDR could get the kind of respect if he was a politician now as he had back in the 30s and 40s. Not just because his ideas might not be in tune with the times, and because the challenges aren't as great, but also because we are more partisan now (so its harder for anyone to get universal respect). Also I think FDR's respect probably wasn't as wide when he was president as it was later. He got a strong majority support at the time, but there was still a reasonably substantial minority opposition to him. Later on, as the political controversies of his day where no longer active, people fighting new fights will look at their opponents and downplay them in comparison with FDR. You even see such a think in more modern times, with both parties comparing the current candidates of the other party unfavorably compared to their predecessors. For example Democrats who fought hard against Reagan or Bush Sr. compare Bush Jr unfavorably with Reagan or Bush Sr. I guess its even possible, that should a Democratic candidate become president after the next election, that Republicans might say positive things about Clinton compared to the new Dem, despite all the attacks they made against Clinton while he was president. |
