For Dr. Rocal Only

13

Statesmanship: Definition, Attributes, Application, and Comparison

          Some of the challenges our leaders face today are no different than the challenges faced by those who came before them (Clark 1921). They are often faced with having to apply appropriate principles to make important decisions, which in turn, affect the people and country. Fortunately, we have statesmanship models like George Washington and Patrick Henry, who wisely applied biblical principles to their actions and decisions and whom we can look for inspiration and guidance (Blake 1959). Calvin Coolidge, a statesman, and our 30th President said about real statesmanship, that “there is a finality that is exceedingly restful…If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.” Leaders who practice statesmanship always return to these biblical doctrines to lead people and frankly, their goal is not an expansion of power or achievement of greatness, but to remind us who we are as God’s children (Fischer 2012).

Definition of Statesmanship

Its Meaning

First, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a “statesman” as one who is versed in the principles or art of government and a wise, skillful, and respected political leader (Wolfers 1949). But as noted in Fischer’s (2012) “Leadership & Statesmanship,” statesmanship includes utilizing traits and skills that are derived from God. It involves someone in a leadership position, a statesman, who loves God and knows that he was put in the position to do God’s work, rather than in the position to merely collect a paycheck. Fischer (2012) further stated that statesmanship could be seen as having a covenant between the person and the people involved. This is because a leader who practices statesmanship does everything genuinely because he believes that no job is too big and has faith in what he or she is assigned to do through God (Goeglein 2012). He relates to the people through his personality, charm, and convincing rhetoric and is careful not to prize his position of power belonging to him and use it to seek recognition but instead, relies on his God-granted talents to serve God through the people. This type of statesman acknowledges that his power is derived from God and he humbly strives to fulfill his role that God has put out for him by always applying biblical principles to what he says and does (Fischer 2012). Essentially, statesmanship entails having a divinely-sanctioned greater good at the center of what they aim to achieve through their leadership, rather than having humanistic purposes (Wolfers 1949). With that said, let’s discuss some of the qualities of statesmanship.

Attributes of Statesmanship

Qualities of Genuine Statesmanship

            A leader who displays statesmanship possess certain qualities that distinguish him from other leaders. He leads well (Fischer 2012), is humble at all times, knows that he does not know everything and acknowledges that he needs the help and feedback from the people because it is not about him, but the people. A leader with statesmanship also thinks systematically and holistically (Vaughn 1997), he sets realistic goals and has a clear vision, foresight, of what can be achieved for the country and people and knows exactly how to get there, often using Bible principles and building consensus with the people. He uses his ability to convince others of his philosophy and for them to be on board with him. He is amiable, outgoing, and well-spoken. He is ambitious, but at the same time, does not abuse his power or forget his morals and values to get to the top (Clark 1921). A leadership who practices statesmanship also has integrity, speaks the truth, and represents the people in everything he does. Moreover, he speaks to people intelligently, potently, and has well-reasoned arguments to motivate and convince the people of what needs to be done (Fischer 2012).

Furthermore, a leader with statesmanship builds a platform on a foundation of well-founded, unchanging, vital truths that he believes (“The Constitutional Convention”) at his very core comprises his overarching philosophy. In the face of changing times, opposition and challenges, this foundation remains intact, and although he may have to change a policy or method of doing things, he does it only because of the practical strategies to further his substratum principles in the long run (“Christianity and Rationalism”). To add, he is not led by public opinion polls, but instead, he makes his decisions by following his morals that are rooted in his belief is that is right or wrong (Goeglein 2012). He sticks to his beliefs and says that it is wrong and does everything in his power to fight against the wrong. Similarly, when he believes that something is right, he does everything to overcome any opposition and goes by what he thinks is the right thing to do (Meade 1957).

Nevertheless, one of the most important virtues of a leader who practices statesmanship is prudence. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote, “our choice of actions will not be right without Prudence any more than without Moral Virtue, since, while Moral Virtue enables us to achieve the end, Prudence makes us adopt the right means to the end” (Halloway 1999). So applying prudence, he rightly understands his role and does not reject his principles for convenience (Newell 2012). Instead, he consistently applies his biblical principles to the circumstances he faces. Lastly, he is rhetoric as he understands that powerful rhetoric can articulate, bring forth, and sometimes activate deeply buried principles. Patrick Henry and George Washington consistently displayed these qualities (Newell 2009).

Application

Past Political Leaders Who Displayed Statesmanship

            From our discussion so far, we can safely say that statesmanship is measured by the profound and positive impact that a leader has on his followers as well as the results he produces. Leaders, like Patrick Henry and George Washington, consistently displayed statesmanship by their decisions and actions (Munoz 2003). First, Partick Henry demonstrated statesmanship because, through his persistence, idealism, and rhetorics, he fought to bring the greater good of liberty and democracy to the American colonies. Henry had complete faith that American Liberty was Divine Will, as he believed that liberty is an inalienable right that God gave humanity (Butterfield 1951). Additionally, Henry’s mistrust in absolute power was based on the biblical principle that we are all sinners, so man cannot be trusted if given total political authority. Furthermore, he believed that with God’s law being above all men, then no law should refute His word, and hence, no ruler should place himself above the law (“Key Biblical and Historical Concepts of Government”). Henry also held that democracy could not thrive in America without the American people being devout and moral, who at the time, had strong Puritan roots compared with the humanists and atheists of the French Revolution (Meade 1957).

Even after his death, Henry displayed statesmanship by leaving a powerful message for us to remember that we need God to prosper (Wolfers 1949). Near his last Will, Henry left a small envelope sealed with wax. On the back of the envelope, he left a message that he knew would only be read after his death and when the envelope was found. In his message, he advised that “prosperity will depend on the Use our people make of the Blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary Character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a Nation. Reader! whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy Sphere, practice Virtue thyself, and encourage it in others” (Butterfield 1951). All in all, Henry was a servant of God who took his relationship with God seriously and although he constantly faced criticism and having to make critical decisions for the country, he never deviated from acknowledging the need of leaning on biblical principles to make these decisions. He used his position to help others and this country succeed and he able to do so effectively because he kept his heart and mind rooted in Biblical principles rather than going on his own (Meade 1957).

Like Henry, George Washington set the precedents that define what it means to be a true statesman. He was a strong, energetic President who was always aware of the limits on his office; he deferred to authority when appropriate but aggressively defended his beliefs when necessary. Washington’s education in the principles of self-government was deeply rooted in religion and his reading of the Bible. As Henriques (2008) stated, “Throughout his public life Washington successfully balanced public religion with religious liberty and invoked the language of the Bible in private and in public his whole life. It had a strong influence on Washington’s mind, and morals, and speech as a statesman.” Moreover, upon accepting his commission as Commander of the Continental Army, Washington combined classical and biblical elements in his address to Congress. He humbly declared that he had “no lust after power but wish with as much fervency as any Man upon this wide extended Continent, for an opportunity of turning the Sword into a plowshare’ (Lim 2008). Washington also knew that the best way to establish a good reputation was to practice statesmanship. “I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain (what I consider the most enviable of all titles) the character of an honest man,” he told Hamilton, “as well as prove (what I desire to be considered in reality) that I am” (Lim 2008)

Additionally, we also see evidence of Washington’s statesmanship when his troops did not have any food, clothing, and supplies during the bitterly cold winters at Valley Forge and again at Morristown. He consistently appealed to Congress to help with the issue. He requested help, tried to persuade them, and sometimes complained, but yet, he never used threats or compulsion against them (Munoz 2003). He chose to love those who did not share his beliefs while still putting all his faith in God. What's more, Washington was not a glad-handing president who pandered to the people and tried to win their affection by presenting himself as a “regular guy.” He believed that the people wanted to “look up to their president and that a certain amount of awe toward the office, even in a republic, was an attribute that contributed to a respectable government,” so he carried himself as such. Even when the time came for him to step down as a leader, he did so humbly, returning to “the plow” at his beloved farm at Mount Vernon (Lim 2008). All in all, Henry and Washington were humble med who believed in God and knew that they needed God to be successful in leading the country. It was their belief that there was a great need for the moralization of politics (Henriques 2008), which includes, and requires, the expansion of religious influence in our politics, rather than going by our man-made rules as some leaders have done.

Comparison to Pseudo-Statesmanship

Difference Between a Genuine and Pretentious Stateman

Unfortunately, we are often faced with leaders who claim to practice statesmanship, but by their actions, we know that they fail to carry themselves as such (Selznick 2009). Instead of statesmanship, they display attributes of pseudo-statesmanship, statesmanship that is not genuine; it is done for self-gratification instead of for the people. It is abusing one's power instead of using the power as a gift from God to help others, failing to listen to people, not sharing power, and just viewing the position as merely a job. It entails doing the bare minimum, not having a vision (Fischer 2012), not engaging the people in decisions, having no authority. It is a leader who divides instead of reunites the people. Pseudo-statesmanship also entails having hate and discontent instead for displaying hesed, where, despite not agreeing with the policies, beliefs or decisions, leaders and followers care for each other (Fischer 2012). It is not being God-centered, but instead rejecting God’s teachings and putting faith on man instead of belief in God.

The Bible cautions us against false prophets, pseudo-statesmen, who charm the public and convince them of the correctness of immoral actions. It further says that these false prophets “their own appetites” and “by smooth talk and flattery, they deceive the minds of naïve people” (Romans 16: 18,19 NIV). Once they get the people’s attention, they “secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord” and “exploit you with fabricated stories” (2 Peter 2: 1,3 NIV). Pseudo-statesmen “entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error” and “promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity” (2 Peter 2:18 NIV). The Bible also states that these false prophets would be around as time will come when “people will not put up with sound doctrine but instead, will opt to “suit their own desires and they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Timothy 4: 3 NIV). We need to heed the Bible's warning and be able to differentiate between statesmanship and pseudo-statesmanship, not only when it deals with our leaders but also when we are put in a leadership position (Stein 1985).

Summary

All in all, we live in a world that is filled with leaders, politicians who are power-hungry, who put their worldly, selfish desires before that of God and give the people what they want instead of consulting God and doing what his Will (Goeglein 2012). Despite this, we do have leaders like Patrick Henry and George Washington who have defied all odds and have served as role models to teach us what real statesmanship is. Both enacted change, inspired the people, used their rhetoric skills (Vaughn 1997), and related to the people to do the Will of God. They left a lasting public impact on everyone, one that even future generations can emulate (Stein 1985). Most importantly, though, these leaders set their vision in doing God’s Will rather than doing it for their selfish interest, and they trusted God and allowed him to use them to get through to the people and generate change for a greater good (Walzer 2015).

Bibliography

"America’s Constitutional Tradition." Liberty University. Accessed January 30, 2017.

https://learn.liberty.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_349389_1&content_id=_15721511_1

Blake, Robert R. "Psychology and the crisis of statesmanship." American Psychologist 14,

no. 2 (1959): 87.

Butterfield, Lyman H. "Dr. Rush to Governor Henry on the Declaration of Independence and

the Virginia Constitution." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95, no. 3 (1951): 250-253.

“Christianity and Rationalism.” Liberty University. Accessed January 25, 2017.

https://learn.liberty.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_349389_1&content_id=_15721511_1

Clark, Leon Pierce. "Unconscious Motives Underlying the Personalities of Great Statesmen

and their Relation to Epoch-Making Events (I. A Psychologic Study of Abraham

Lincoln)." The Psychoanalytic Review (1913-1957) 8 (1921): 1.

Fischer, Kahlib J. PhD. “Leadership and Statesmanship:  An Introduction,” Liberty

University. 2012. Accessed January 30, 2017.

https://learn.liberty.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-15721559-dt-content-rid-136291014_1/courses/PPOG504_B02_201720/Leadership%20and%20Statesmanship.pdf

Fischer, Kahlib J. PhD. “Covenant and Statesmanship. Liberty University. 2012.

https://learn.liberty.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_349389_1&content_id=_15721506_1

Goeglein, Tim. “Rhetorical Challenges of Democratic Statesmanship.” Liberty University.

2012. Accessed on January 39, 2017.

https://learn.liberty.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_349389_1&content_id=_15721516_1

Goeglein, Tim. “The Uncompromising Statesmanship.” Liberty University. 2012. Accessed

January 28, 2017.

https://learn.liberty.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_349389_1&content_id=_15721516_1

Henriques, Peter R. Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington. University of

Virginia Press, 2008.

Holloway, Carson. "Christianity, magnanimity, and statesmanship." The Review of politics

61, no. 04 (1999): 581-604.

“Key Biblical and Historical Concepts of Government.” Liberty University. Accessed

January 28, 2017. https://learn.liberty.edu/courses/1/PPOG504_B02_201720/content/_15721556_1/index_lms.html

Lim, Elvin T. The anti-intellectual presidency: The decline of presidential rhetoric from

George Washington to George W. Bush. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Meade, Robert Douthat. Patrick Henry: Patriot in the Making. Vol. 1. Philadelphia, 1957.

Muñoz, Vincent Phillip. "George Washington on religious liberty." The Review of politics 65,

no. 01 (2003): 11-34.

Newell, Terry. Statesmanship, character, and leadership in America. Springer, 2012.

Newell, Waller R. The soul of a leader: character, conviction, and ten lessons in political

greatness. Harper Collins, 2009.

Selznick, Philip. Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Quid Pro

Books, 2011.

Stein, Jay W. "Isaiah and Statesmanship." Journal of Church and State 27, no. 1 (1985): 83-

97.

“The Constitutional Convention.”Liberty University. Accessed January 24, 2017.

https://learn.liberty.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_349389_1&content_id=_15721511_1

Vaughan, David J. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry.

Cumberland House Publishing, 1997.

Wolfers, Arnold. "Statesmanship and moral choice." World Politics 1, no. 02 (1949): 175-

195.

Walzer, Michael. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic

Books, 2015.