Study the recent history of any country and you’ll see two possible trends. You’ll find that at times, the country was governed by a small group of people gathered in the office of the President or the Prime Minister, whichever system they happen to follow. You’ll also find that the country was at other times governed by a large group of people positioned throughout the various ministries and departments.
Whatever the management style of the country, it reflected
to a large extent the disposition of the man (or woman) who was elected to sit
at the helm of the ship of state. Some people, such as Jimmy Carter, were
hands-on, meticulous managers who liked to be on top of things however minute
the details may have been. Other people such as George W. Bush liked to
delegate their powers to underlings, and watch them run the ship of state in
their name.
Much has been written about every leader that was elected
to govern a country, be that a democratic country, an autocratic one, or a
country that sat between the two extremes. And yet, despite all the ink that
was spilt telling the history of these leaders, there has never been an attempt
to evaluate which management style was more effective. Was Jimmy Carter’s style
superior to that of George W. Bush? Or was it the other way around? No one
seems to know.
Perhaps the reason why there has never been a serious
study done to determine which management style is preferable when it comes to
running a country, is that the style is a small factor in the constellation of
factors which ultimately determine the success or failure of an administration.
This prompts the following question: What single factor, if any, plays the most
important role in making that determination?
I do not believe this question can be answered until
there has been a comprehensive study carried on the subject. Even then, we may
find that every situation is so unique, no rule of thumb can apply that would
yield a definitive answer. In fact, something happened when I was a small boy,
that set me on a path from which I never deviated.
It was in the early years of the 1950s that I started
thinking about these things. What I remember is that the time was a few years
after the end of the Great War. In a school run by Christian Brothers, we began
every morning with the catechism and other religious matters. One morning, the
role of a Pope during the war came up, and something was said that I never
forgot. It was that Divine Providence makes it so that the right person is
chosen to be pope at the right time.
A few years later, I was old enough to react emotionally
to world events. Living outside of Egypt, the events surrounding the Suez Canal,
and hearing about them on the radio, occupied much of our family’s thoughts. Within
a few weeks, Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser, about whom we cared little
previously, suddenly became a superhero in the entire Arab world, and in our
household. I thought it was true what I learned in that catechism class years
ago: the right man gets installed at the helm of the nation or the church by
divine providence or by another mysterious method. Ever since that time, I
never saw anything that would cause me to change my mind.
This brings us to the article that came under the title:
“Democrats’ support for Israel has cratered under Biden,” written by Barry
Shaw, and published on April 5, 2022 in The American Thinker.
Reading the first sentence in that article tells you that
Barry Shaw is no fan of President Joe Biden. He compares Biden to Reagan, Trump
and “even” Clinton, and finds that he does not measure up to any of them because
Biden is no originalist, says Barry Shaw. The trouble is that the writer does
not give a hint as to what made either of the other three, an originalist who
merits being praised. But we forgive Barry Shaw for this omission.
However, Shaw makes up for his omission by telling why he
believes Joe Biden is not an originalist. He says it is that Biden does not
have one unique policy of his own. He also believes that Biden is merely the front man, the
mouthpiece for the background bureaucrats who set America's course and craft
America's direction. He proceeds to illustrate this point by listing
Biden’s failures domestically, and his animosity toward Israel internationally.
Here, in condensed form, is what Shaw says about Biden:
“He said little about America's
southern border, a policy set by socialists of the Democratic party. It's
Biden’s problem, not there before he took office. Another is the
economy. A third is the way they educate kids. As to foreign policy, Biden
is the puppet of his handlers. He canceled the Keystone
Pipeline. What happened to the US, once Israel’s ally? Under Biden,
those days are over. How did that happen? It began before he became
president. He was fond of Golda Meir. That's how far he goes back. But
he wasn't fond of Begin or Netanyahu. He was rebuked by Begin when he
threatened to cut off US aid to Israel. But the harshest anti-Israel cut
was to bring UN Security Council Resolution 2334. Biden's animosity toward
Israel also expresses itself in a new directive. He is offering a
million-dollar bounty to anyone reporting Israeli human rights violations
against Palestinians. This reward is not reciprocal. It's only Israel
they are after. Biden is determined to revoke Israel's sovereignty over
Jerusalem. It is another example of his antagonism against Israel. I am
certain it is not Biden inventing these provocative policies”.
Whatever Barry Shaw believes he is telling his readers,
what comes out from his discussion, is that there was a time when America was
not governed like a sovereign nation. It is that for Israel to feel like a
sovereign nation, America had to play the role of its subordinate. With deep regret,
those days are over, says Barry Shaw. Well, thank heaven they are, and humanity
has Joe Biden to salute for it.