The West's Wily World Leadership

Gerhard Schroder is the latest edition to a growing collection of good-looking and affable political leaders of Western democratic nations. He defeated a 300-pound man, Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who had spent 16 years in office, the longest period of single rule in Germany since Otto von Bismarck's reign over a century ago.

But by most accounts Schroder is nothing special. The New York Times referred to him as a "pragmatic centrist" in its lead editorial yesterday, while The Economist featured him on the cover last month with the headline, "Would you buy a used car from Gerhard Schroder?"

If this question was an appropriate litmus test for Schroder's integrity or fitness for office, it may seem impressive that he could win by as wide a margin as he did--except for the fact that the new chancellor's necessary and sufficient selling point in Sunday's election was that he is not Helmut Kohl. Sixteen years is double the length of time any American president is allowed to serve (unless his predecessor resigns, of course) and was long enough to make people question whether or not democracy was still kicking in Germany.

Schroder's election means, among other things, that the three major powers in Western Europe as well as the United States are now all governed by left-of-center leaders. Tony Blair, Lionel Jospin, Bill Clinton and Gerhard Schroder are all handsome, nice guys who want more than anything else to be well-liked, and who have succeeded in being well-liked enough.

All four of these men seem to get along well with one another. One only needs recall the happy shots of Clinton and Blair--in Ireland or London or Washington--or the smiley weekends Jospin and Schroder spent in the capital this summer to be convinced of their collective jocularity. In theory, it seems, the Western world has never as been as poised to act as a cohesive unit as it is today, at the close of the twentieth century.

Yet organized world leadership is the last thing young people expect from these four men. Jospin is excused to some degree because France's President, Jacques Chirac, is still largely responsible for foreign policy and Jospin is preoccupied with getting his own country back on track. But among Blair, Clinton and Schroder, the situation is bleak. And yet whom do we have to blame? I don't have faith in the slick sell of these career politicians, and I voted for one. And I probably would have voted for Blair and Schroder, too, if I had been in a position to do so.

Unfortunately, the contrast between charismatic politicians--who not only could sell you a used car but who would also gladly lie to you about its condition--and true world leaders was brought sharply into focus right here at Harvard 11 days ago.

More students showed up to see Nelson Mandela on September 18 than would have shown up to see Gerhard Schroder, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton together. Why? Because Mandela represents an archetype of one who is committed to truth and who is willing to sacrifice himself for justice, while these "ordinary guys" would be hard-pressed to spell "justice" before taking a poll. The irony of the special convocation two weeks ago is that Mandela seemed like an artifact receiving his honorary degree--a romantic afterthought in an age that has forgotten that men like him exist.

Clinton, our nation's tragic hero, represents the best and the worst of this new order. He has an amazing and useful ability to persuade people to believe in him, but he lacks loyalty both to people and principles, and he cares more about history than he does about progress.

Schroder's election was probably a good thing for Germany; Kohl had worn out his welcome. But one gets the feeling that out of Clinton, Blair, Schroder and Kohl, the phrase "to hell with history," could only have come from Kohl's mouth--which it did.

I don't know what's worse: the fact that genuine world leadership seems to have disappeared or that very few people seems to care. What is clear, though, is that the world order we have ushered in over the last six years is relatively efficient, very slick and tremendously uninspiring.

Daniel M. Suleiman '99 is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House. His column appear on alternate Tuesdays.