Do "Great Men" Make a Dramatic Difference?

We recently saw the wonderful movie Darkest Hour, focused on Britain and Winston Churchill during a critical time in the early days of World War II and the fall of France. The film dramatically contrasts Churchill's insistence that the only option for dealing with Hitler was militarily, versus the desire of Neville Chamberlain and others to attempt negotiation. It culminates with focus on Churchill's tremendous ability as an orator to arouse the patriotism of his fellow countrymen. Of course, with hindsight we know that Hitler's crimes were far worse than anyone knew in 1940 and that negotiation wasn't a viable option. I can't help but wonder what the world might be like today if a "great man" like Churchill hadn't arisen at exactly the right time? 

The great man theory was popular in the 19th century, with Thomas Carlyle as one of its leading advocates: "The history of the world is but the biography of great men." Great, of course, shouldn't be confused with good. You can easily argue that the history of the twentieth century was shaped indelibly by another "great man," Adolf Hitler. Which leads to the counter-argument, also popularized in the 19th century by Herbert Spencer, that "such great men are the products of their societies, and that their actions would be impossible without the social conditions built before their lifetimes" (Wikipedia).

Most historians agree that the disastrous Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I led to the economic and social conditions in Germany that in turn led to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. We lacked "great men" at Versailles to rise above their justifiable grievances and think about the long-term consequences of bitter revenge. Conversely, we can thank the "great men" at Yalta for doing a better job of negotiating an end to the second great war from the perspective of Europe, although they laid the foundation for the Cold War.

Many great thinkers and writers are intrigued by the trade-offs between larger-than-life individuals versus the surrounding economic and historic conditions as the primary drivers of historic events. Stephen King famously tried to answer the question asked by all of us of a certain age: "What if Kennedy hadn't been shot?" Ultimately, he surmises (spoiler alert) that Kennedy's idealism would have led to an entirely different set of problems than what we experienced with Nixon, but serious problems nonetheless. I guess his bleak view of a world led by Kennedy is supposed to make us find his loss less tragic, but I can't help but wonder? What would the world be like without the untimely loss of Lincoln, or Martin Luther King, or Bobby Kennedy, or Paul Wellstone? The mental exercise of imaging the impact of a great man is simpler than envisioning different societal circumstances.

Which brings me to another "great man" (meaning larger-than-life, not heroic or even good), Donald Trump. In the midst of his presidency, it's difficult to have any reasonable perspective on the lasting impact he will have. Analyses of the factors that drove his election and its potential long-term implications are already extensive.  I was struck this week by an article focused on the international implications of a single wildly offensive remark made by Trump: "Trump's Insults Will Nudge African Nations Closer To China." Despite the arc of history that brought us to this point, it is hard to argue against a "great man" view of history when we see the dramatic effects rippling across the globe each and every day.