Luke Ford

In his 2015 book, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, Andrew Heywood wrote:

In some respects the subject of political leadership appears to be outdated. The division of society into leaders and followers is rooted in a pre-democratic culture of deference and respect in which leaders ‘knew best’ and the public needed to be led, mobilized or guided. …democracy itself has enhanced the importance of personality by forcing political leaders, in effect, to ‘project themselves’ in the hope of gaining electoral support. This tendency has undoubtedly been strengthened by modern means of mass communication (especially television), which tend to emphasize personality rather than policies, and provide leaders with powerful weapons with which to manipulate their public images. Furthermore, as society becomes more complex and fragmented, people may look increasingly to the personal vision of an individual leader to give coherence and meaning to the world in which they live.

The question of political leadership is nevertheless surrounded by deep ideological controversy. Its principal supporters have been on the political right, influenced by a general belief in natural inequality and a broadly pessimistic view of the masses. In its extreme form this was reflected in the fascist ‘leader principle’, which holds that there is a single, supreme leader who alone is capable of leading the masses to their destiny, a theory derived from Friedrich Nietzsche’s (1844–1900) notion of the Übermensch (‘superman’). Among the supposed virtues of leadership are that it:

• Mobilizes and inspires people who would otherwise be inert and directionless
• Promotes unity and encourages members of a group to pull in the same direction
• Strengthens organizations by establishing a hierarchy of responsibilities and roles.

Liberals and socialists, on the other hand, have usually warned that leaders should not be trusted, and treated leadership as a basic threat to equality and justice.

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager said Jun. 28, 2011 about the Brandeis-Bardin Institute, which he directed between 1977 and 1983: “Individuals make and break the world… Do you know how many organizations I’ve seen that were great because its leader was great and then the leader died or retired and the place became nothing? It just shriveled up and died.

“I know of what I speak on a personal level where the leader leaves and the people thought that what was great about the institutions was its policies, its methodologies. Doesn’t matter who led it. Then when good leaders left, the methodologies were useless.”

On the other hand, Mar. 23, 2010, Dennis said: “Leaders don’t make America, Americans make America… I don’t want leaders to shape America.”

“God was entirely opposed to having a king. The Israelites asked for a king. Instead, He just wanted the prophets to tell people what is right and wrong and let them lead their own lives.”

“I don’t want leaders. I have a leader — God. We lead ourselves in America. The very notion that leaders will lead us is left-wing.”

So when is Dennis for leadership and when is Dennis opposed to leadership? It’s hard to avoid thinking that Dennis loves leadership when it allows him to assert himself above others and he doesn’t like leadership when it allows others to assert themselves above him. 

In his 2015 book, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, Andrew Heywood wrote:

International law is an unusual phenomenon. As traditionally understood, law consists of a set of compulsory and enforceable enforceable rules, reflecting the will of a sovereign power. And yet no central authority exists in international politics that is capable of enforcing rules, legal or otherwise. International law is therefore ‘soft’ rather than ‘hard’ law. Some, as a result, dismiss the idea of international law as nothing more than a collection of moral principles and ideals.

In his 2015 book, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, Andrew Heywood wrote:

All forms of identity politics nevertheless exhibit two characteristic beliefs. First, group marginalization is understood not merely as a legal, political or social phenomenon, but is, rather, a cultural phenomenon. Second, subordination can be challenged by reshaping identity to give the group concerned a sense of (usually publicly proclaimed) pride and self-respect – ‘black is beautiful’, ‘gay pride’ and so on.

While identity politics can be traced back to the emergence of the black consciousness movement in the early decades of the twentieth century, it has had its greatest impact since the 1970s. The upsurge in identity politics occurred in the light of growing attacks on liberal universalism, as greater emphasis was placed on the issues of difference and diversity, and the decline of socialism , which, until the 1970s, had been the dominant means through which the interests of subordinate groups had been expressed. The potency of identity politics derives from its capacity to expose and challenge the deeper processes through which group marginalization and subordination take place. As such, it goes beyond conventional approaches to social advancement, based on the politics of rights (liberalism) and the politics of redistribution (social democracy), and instead offers a politics of recognition, based on an assertion of group solidarity.