Letter from Downunder

How come you got us into this mess?

Submitted by Lindsay Coker, Melbourne Australia

(2/10) Laurel and Hardy were one of the great comic duos of the mid-20th century. I remember the buzz of excitement in our house if a new film of theirs was advertised, and the gales of laughter that it always produced in the audience. The above quote was one of Hardy's tag lines, for after getting them both into a bad situation with no way out, he'd turn to poor little Stan Laurel and snarl it.

I understand that you will be celebrating President's day soon, and thought I'd pay my own respects with the above. 'You're the president, how come you got us into this mess?' We say it about our prime minister, and I have no doubt that everyone with an elected leader does too. Under their breath, possibly, because not everyone enjoys the freedom to say out loud what they think, but we can.

Which is possibly the greatest benefit that our democratic system has given us, for if we cannot complain, poke fun, or ridicule our leaders, (or, as one of our former would-be leaders put it, 'keep the bastards honest,') then we haven't got much. There's another saying, however, that comes to mind at this point: A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. Sure, we complain about our leaders. They're ignorant, stupid and venal. But we put them there, so we don't complain too righteously, but they are often seen quite differently overseas.

Now here's the rub: No leader is ever in isolation. They are on a world stage as well as a domestic one. What they say in one situation may be very different in the other, because while they are beholden to their populace for their office, they also need to find a level of cooperation or harmony with their counterparts around the world. To neglect the domestic scene is to court dismissal. To be out of touch with the world scene is to court loss of influence at least. There's also the all too possible result that such bias, whether it is actual or only perceived, can lead to animosity, betrayal, and terrorism. Innumerable examples of this abound, and not to be laboured in this column, but the world is in a fairly parlous state right now, and needs a leader as never before.

Which leads me to my theme this month: What's the difference between a politician and a statesman?

Surprisingly, it was Mikhail Gorbachev who made this salient observation: 'A statesman does what he believes is best for his country, a politician does what best gets him reelected.'

James Freeman Clarke said even more tellingly, 'A politician thinks about the next election - the statesman thinks about the next generations,' while Henry Kissinger chimed in with 'The task of statesmen is to resolve complexity, not to contemplate it.'

So who are the great statesmen? Some names spring to mind immediately: Without a doubt, Marcus Aurelius Claudius and Abraham Lincoln are among the greats, John Adams must be there, as do FD and Theodore Roosevelt, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and, for all his faults, Winston Churchill. Some never were political leaders, people like Samuel Adams and Martin Luther King, but the list is quite small considering the number of leaders who have been on stage over the past several hundred years.

All of then have one thing in common, 'I have a dream'. They are visionaries, caring less about their own power and political life than the progress of their nation, their people, and the good of the whole. They acted for the long term good and continuance of the people in their country, and in many cases of other countries as well. As the world keeps shrinking, as communication between nations, leaders, and citizens becomes very nearly instantaneous, we surely again need someone who will stand at the peak and give a clarion call.

You might say it is easy for me to sit in my office, thousands of miles away from America, and make observations on the state of your nation, but it does give me a perspective that is harder to find close to home. The latest polls show you almost revere Ronald Regan, with G W Bush not far behind - but, to be honest, from my side of the ocean they appear to be self-serving folk whose disregard for the outcome of their decisions has left you all, and the world in general, in a pretty parlous state.

What we all need, right now, is a statesperson (easily, and hopefully this will be a woman) who has the conviction, the magnetism, and so pressing a dream that they can step onto the world stage, unite the peoples (I nearly wrote 'oppressed masses') of every nation and achieve the reversal of our self-serving leaders - and they seem to be entrenched in many parts of the globe - who can see no further than the next election.

So, who is going to win your 'president's day' contest this year? I'll wait with great interest. Perhaps some one who agrees with Aristotle:: 'What the statesman is most anxious to produce is a certain moral character in his fellow citizens, namely a disposition to virtue and the performance of virtuous actions.'

Lindsay