War and Peace

[camacazio]

Today in Pol102, we had a class discussion on what makes a good president. I had little to contribute on this discussion because my views on it were more or less shaped by War and Peace (Tolstoy) which I read two years back in my spare time. As the philosophy explained it, it basically can be summed up as the idea that there are no leaders, per se, but instead a will of people. The will of people force up someone into a position to carry out that will. As an example, the great depression--the country was screwed, and most people say that FDR was great for fixing it. He was definately a good president, but it wasn't him who did anything. It was a people's collective need for the situation to be remedied. They could have done it themselves, but the form of government we have calls for electing someone who's dynamics would be able to help them out of the crappy situation. For a brief thesis: historians tend to look at the leaders and how they shaped the life and times of people below their power, but that is wrong--instead, it should be looked at the life and times of the people, and how their will forced out a leader for the life and times at the time in need.

War and Peace was written to use Napoleon's effort to conquer the world as an example. The book is mostly the lives of Russians involved in Napoleon's invasion of Russia, with little snippets of philosophy thrown in that slowly reveals his point--and the last 100 pages, drops his idea on you. He says, for his example, that Napoleon was brought to power because the French people for too long felt repressed by the monarchy. They not only wanted a new leader in their revolution, but they needed to feel more positive backlash for their centuries of oppression. In effect, Napoleon appeared not as a leader, but a product, of France's need for reform, better life, and even expansion as a byproduct of that. Russians had a relatively weaker leader, the Tsar, because they at the time didn't need a better one. As such, Napoleon had limited trouble invading. The Russians, now collectively forming a stronger will after several defeats, managed to push Napoleon back out of Russia.

Either example, Napoleon, or FDR shows how powerful Tolstoy's claim is, because it isn't some random weird idea, it truly shows how in any event (even in an oppressive monarchy) the will of the people is what is the principle ruling power at any given moment in history.