why isn't the Great Man Theory a pile of bunk? it's because
conditions are not enough; there is 'eventuality' ONLY WHEN certain
people assemble the available elements together and spark something
new. this is more true in some fields than others. sciences and
maths can only proceed by certain established rules but many human
affairs and social events are really a matter of 'vision' or
'inspiration'. so, while einstein's exact findings were inevitable
sooner or later, had there been no beethoven, picasso, or hitler the
history of arts or politics would have been drastically different. of
course, great men are supremely important in science, and certain
groups are more likely to contribute great men in certain fields than
other groups. the prevalence of jews in europe played a major role in
the advancement of modern science. even without jews, there would
have been great progress as the western system and method of free
inquiry and rational logic allowed intelligent and inventive men to do
their best work. but, jews sped up the process by leaps and bounds
because there were far more super geniuses among their rank than in
other groups.
but, science and mathematics play by its own rules. people can
discover truths in science and math but cannot invent them.

there are rules in the arts and social reality as well, but these
rules are not set in stone. while most of us may agree on what is and
isn't (good)music and while most people of a community share
fundamental values, there is greater leeway based on the vision or the
inspiration of the great man. this is where the arts and even social
reality can be creative whereas science and math cannot. to be sure,
creative minds are better suited for intellectual pursuits but the
truths in science and mathematics are never created but discovered or
advanced.
but, religious visions are creative--even if the visionary claims to
have merely gained access to the divine realm. arts and religion are
about creating what is not really there. it is about imagination. in
this sense, we can argue that the great men of science and mathematics
are geniuses or super intelligent men than Great Man. (though man does
create god than the other way around, this doesn't mean man is greater
than god. man's ideas outlast any single man, so ideas--even if
created or produced by man--could be said to be greater than man. for
example, take the Idea of Truth or Justice. such ideas or ideals don't
exist in nature. they were conceptualized by man. but, they have power
OVER man. so, man bows down to the ideas and concepts he creates. so,
even if man created god, god is greater than man. of course, man,
seeking the answer to the universe, doesn't say he 'created' but
'discovered' god as the ultimate Truth of the universe.) no matter
teh greatness of a scientist, his role is to find the truth of the
universe as-is. in contrast, a Great Man in the arts or social
affairs may be regarded as a Creator of a new order, a godly figure.
there is a difference between columbus discovering an unknown land and
an emperor founding an empire. columbus wasn't being creative; nor
was he a Great Man in his time; he discovered or found what was
already there; he didn't create it. but, emperors create what is not
there. they unite various kingdoms. they may discover new lands or
conquers new territories, but what truly makes him great is he
envisions something that doesn't exist in nature or has been
envisioned by men before. they CONCEPTUALIZE a new vision of
socieyt. this was the greatness of alexander the great. or genghis
khan. or napoleon. of course, they didn't create lands that didn't
exist but they created a new vision of the land and of the people.
they worked with human imagination.
discovering the 'new world' was a geographical fact. it was not a work
of imagination. but founding a nation called united states was a
visionary feat. there was nothing in nature or law of the universe
that said 'united states of america, a democracy where men are
equal'. such had to be created by great men.

of course, one could argue that this 'great man theory' has become
less important in the modern democratic era for several reasons. for
one thing, most democracies limit the terms of its rulers. a man
serving only 8 or 12 yrs cannot be great like the rulers of old.
also, democratic leaders need to follow the law and win approval of
the people. he has limited freedom and creativity in envisioning his
new order. in the modern era, there is a 'science' to politics.
also, the infusion of rationalism into politics since the
enlightenment has made us see history in terms of measurable and
predictable progress and change. we measure real change in economic
or technological terms rather than by the vision of a great leader.
hitler was perhaps the last great creative leader with any worldwide
repercussions. what about stalin and mao? while they were also
'great men', as communists they had to adhere to the principle that
history follows the rules of dialectical materialism. despite the
obnoxious cults of personality, even stalin and mao had to bow down to
the 'iron law of history'. to an extent, there was this sense among
the kings of europe long before the enlightement. as kings ruled by
divine right, they had to bow down before the one and only god. the
concept of the creative great man ruler is essentially pagan. while
pagans also believed in gods a pagan king did not bow down to one
god. just as gods pitted man against man, a king can pit god against
god--win the favor of athena against the hostility of ares, for
example. so, it's not difficult to understand that the great
creative and mythic ideology of the 20th century was fascism which was
paganistic despite its token respect for christian tradition and
culture. the kings of christian europe, on the other hand, felt they
were following the direction of history as set forth by the one and
only God. in this sense, the marxist idea of history has something in
common with the christian idea of history. both bow down to the ONE
guiding force that governs all. man can change the world and make
progress in this world but cannot go against the will of god or law of
history. there may be 'great men' in this dimension--surely marx and
his followers considered themselves as 'great men'--, but their
greatness is their adherence to some higher moral or social order;
there is a sense of a reality or truth beyond individual man and the
sense that all man really do is find better ways to obey this reality
or understand it better. lenin, stalin, and mao believed marxism as
the truth. marx saw economic forces as the truth.

a creative 'great man' thinks differently. he really believes that a
great individual can change history. to be sure, there is an element
of historicism or destiny-ism among the creative great men also.
hitler saw himself as playing a vanguard role in the necessary triumph
of the aryan race and believed that darwinian truth was on his side.
mussolini saw himself as reviving the spirit of ancient rome.
muhammad is a special case. as a believer in allah the one and only
god, he needs to be categorized with the likes of marx and christian
rulers. but, as the author of an highly creative twist on old and new
testament--combined with elements of arab culture--, he was like a
creative pagan twist on judeo-christianism. he was like jesus--or
marx--crossed with hitler.
koran was his mein kampf and communist manifesto in religious form.

anyway, getting back to the original point, there are no inevitables
in history--with the exception of science and mathematics in a free
and affluent society(though even here, certain discoveries may be so
difficult that only rare geniuses would be able to make the
breakthrough. for example, would US have developed the atomic bomb so
quickly without jewish scientists? or suppose nazi germany had
invested as much into atom bomb project as the US. would it have
built the bomb in a few yrs or ever without jews? this could be called
the 'great white hope' theory. quality often trumps quantity. all
those white boys could not beat jack johnson or muhammad ali. and will
there be gold medalist in the 100 m sprint among the billion plus
chinese?).

while there are no inevitables, there are possibles. for example, a
forest during a long dry spell is in danger of a forest fire but it
doesn't mean that there will be a forest fire.
or, consider the 60s. suppose bob dylan had not been born. would
there have been another guy who basically did what he did? surely, all
the necessary ingredients were there--negro music, folk music, country
music, rock n roll, etc. yet, why did robert zimmerman become bob
dylan and no one else(imitators don't count because they suck and are
only possible because of the original)? this is true enough in the
arts where imagination is of primary importance. art doesn't have to
be realistic, rational, sensible, or whatever. it need only be
poetic, powerful, beautiful, sublime, etc. and we love to lose
ourselves in the irresponsible greatness of art. we are shocked by
9/11 but are awestruck by the destruction of entire worlds in wagner
operas or star wars or LOR movies.

vision and imagination counts for less in social reality, especially
in modern social reality. in primitive societies, a visionary can
become a great leader or founder of a new social order, new religion,
new customs, etc. this is harder to pull off in modern society.
indeed, few modern leaders have had what one could call a creative
vision or temperament. such was hitler and proved to be dangerous as
hell. japan under military rule didn't have a 'great leader' like
hitler or mussolini but had a sacred/mythic symbol in the emperor and
was united by a sense of japanese spiritualism. though this was an
ancient myth, in its original incarnation it had been envisioned and/
or created by 'great men'. so, the japanese under militarism were
still under the spell of ancient visionaries and 'medicine men'.

it's true enough that 'great men' played an important role in the 20th
century but 20th century also saw the last gasp of such leaders.
though francis fukuyama's ideas in 'end of history' were premature,
much of mankind may have finally bid farewell to Great Ideas and Great
Men in the 20th century. for starters, there was the fall of
mussolini and hitler. while there were other dictators in the latter
half of the 20th century they were either inconsequential or not
necessarily averse to their societies becoming modern/democratic in
the future. mussolini and hitler banked on the idea that europe will
continue to be ruled by great visionaries in the future. but, many
dictators in asia and latin america saw their roles as essentially
transitional for the purpose of holding back radicalism or for
providing stability for economic development. strongmen like deng
xiaopeng and vladimir putin are not really into the 'great man'
theory; they are more into the great nation theory, an idea which
still has a long way to go. hitler and even mussolini saw their role
as essentially visionary, creative, artistic. deng and putin belong
to the technocratic school--more engineers and nation builders than
artists and architects.

if deng and putin deserve the title of 'great men', they belong to the
pragmatic school of great-man-ism. if this goes according to plan, it
means doom for 'the great man'. hitler and mussolini were perhaps the
last of the 'great man as ideal' school. for them, history and
society were boring without some great visionary to point the way and
lead the nation. there is some of this in hugo chavez.
though communism produced its share of 'great men', it was really
about the 'great idea theory'.
the 'great man theory as ideal' died in the rubble of WWII and 'the
great idea theory' died with the fall of communism in europe and its
dissipation in china. 'the great idea theory' appealed to many
intellectuals--not least among the higly educated in the West--because
it had the intellectual air of being scientific which is something the
creative and visionary(and unstable)ideology of fascism could never
be. indeed, fascism was offensive and baffling to many intellectual
types because its ideology was perversely anti-ideological. there was
no fixed set of rules in fascism; the creative and visionary facets of
fascism struck intellectuals as opportunistic or, at best, shrewdly
pragmatic. intellectuals love ideas. since their lives are about
ideas, they seek THE perfect idea. and marxism seemed as such because
it professed to have united science, mathematics, sociology, politics,
history, fighting spirit, and even a bit of spiritualism. also,
intellectuals everywhere have something of the philosopher king
complex and resent having less power and prestige than crass 'greedy'
people who've made millions trading pork bellies; this is
understandable and even useful as long as intellectuals don't get
arrogant and radical and think they know everything. intellectuals
took over two great movements--french revolution and russian
revolution--and made a total mess of them. sometimes, a burger flipper
has more sense than an intellectual. the intellectual certainly has
more knowledge but it may be irrelevant or misguided in understanding
the true nature of man. some intellectuals fail by distrusting man
too much while others fail by too much trust. either leads to
radicalism.

as marxism seemed to grow weaker and weaker as theory, intellectuals
tried to reform or tweak it, with about as much success as gorbachev
with the soviet economy. ironically, marxism is most alive today in
the least rational and the most 'creative' pursuits like humanties and
the arts. having failed in the real world, it is now a fantasy like
LOR or star wars utopia for university radicals. what are Matrix
movies but the communist manifesto as videogames? Matrix or
Marx'sTricks. even more ironic is the fact that many nations used
fascistic elements to make progress in the real world. all the
successful asian nations used a form of fascism. china followed the
fascist model since the 80s and has been booming. and russia under
putin is a kind of a fascistic state. of course, these fascisms are
pragmatic than idealistic, and the practitioners never call it by its
name. deng never tried to be the great khan, and putin is not trying
to be the tsar-fuhrer of russia. but, they both cleverly, even
brilliantly, used the formula of the 'revolutionary right'--an anti-
ideological combo of socialism, capitalism, nationalism, stability-and-
economic-growth oriented authoritarianism, and a kind of
mercantilism. though 'fascism' is a bad word, applications of its
quasi-variations have led to great progress. while marxism is still
held dear by many intellectuals, its main influence is among literary
professors, culture critics, movie makers, rock bands, and the so-
called creative crowd. to be sure, marxism appealed to far more
creative people in the 20th century than fascism did.

we still have like the idea of the great leader and we'll always have
them. but, we may no longer have 'great men' in the visionary or
creative sense. consider some relatively recent leaders who've been
called great--reagan, thatcher, and gorbachev. the fact is none of
them would be called great had it not been for the then still existing
power of 'the great idea'. so, reagan's greatness--if it can be called
that--was made possible by a great enemy. would reagan be considered
great by his economic report alone? clinton had as good a record but
who calls clinton great? reagan is called great because he toppled the
empire of the Great Idea.
thatcher's accomplishment in the economic area was greater since UK
had been more socialized and more resistant to reforms. but even her
greatness largely depended on her stance against the soviet union and
her coming to terms with gorbachev. and gorbachev's greatness can be
attributed to ONLY one thing--ending the 'great idea' system. his
record in all other areas were abyssmal failures. without evil 'great
men' and evil 'great ideas' to fight against, how can there be good
'great men' in the future.
hitler and mussolini were megalomanicas who wanted to be great.
democratic leaders, on the other hand, don't try to be great. they try
to be good, and it's up to historians to decide if they were 'great'
presidents or not. look at US history and nearly all great
presidents were either founders or war-time presidents. washington,
jefferson, lincoln, FDR, and reagan--if we count victory in the cold
war as a kind of military/moral victory. as the world becomes more
modern and democratic, there will be less possibility for greatness.
a democratic president cannot seek greatness but only goodness; he can
only be great when challenged with a great--often evil--power from the
outside--or from the inside on the rare occasion when things seem to
be totally falling apart. this even applies ot mayors. guiliana's
first term could be called great because it DRAMATICALLY reversed
crime levels in NY. (it was a kind of SURGE strategy in NY before it
was tried in Iraq.) but, giuliani's star had been fading in the
second term. but, then 9/11 made him a 'great leader', not just of NY
but of the entire nation. 'great man' in the idealistic sense seeks
greatness regardless of what's he's up against. even had hitler not
waged war on his neighbors, he would have pushed the german people
toward 'greatness'. he had great great plans, like building the new
capital Germania. he wanted and had the power to do everything his
way. he was genuinely 'great' in this sense. but, no democratic
leader, no matter how rich and powerful his nation, can make
'greatness' his main priority. his objective is to be a good decent
leader who respects checks and balances, the rule of law, the limits
of his power and his terms. (in this sense, giuliani, in the first
term, was great at being good than great at being great.) he cannot
call for a super great or daunting task for the entire nation--like
the building of Germania. a democratic leader can be ambitious and
could win a measure of 'greatness', but it's always about the social
good rather than his great vision. a democratic leader can never say
'i did it my way' or 'this is MY vision of the nation'. rather,
programs like Great Society or Welfare Reform were about serving the
people and improving government. also, democratic leaders can push
certain programs but cannot force people to appreciate them or use
them properly. Great Society failed because no one felt any gratitude
while exploiting it for all it was worth. it turned entire underclass
populations into welfare louts and boors. a 'great man', on the
other hand, can push programs or projects which demand respect and
appreciation; and the people can be coerced to do as told. not that
this works any better. mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural
Revolution were 'great' attempts by a 'great man' to remake china
overnight. everyone got swept up in them, but in both cases china
came to the brink of utter ruination. and, castro's cuba where
everyone has been inspired and/or coercd to go along is one helluva
dreary and repressive place.

both bushes are interesting cases. father bush inched toward
greatness when hussein invaded kuwait. he even took US to war even
though US was not invaded. most americans supported the war, but
there wasn't much interest in doing anything beyond driving hussein
out of kuwait. and father bush showed no interest beyond that either.
maybe father bush didn't care too much for greatness. maybe he learned
from korean war where macarthur foolishly overstepped the initial goal
of the war and marched up north and paid a high price for it. so,
father bush stopped at the '38th parallel' of the Gulf War. this
reluctance to go for greatness could be deemed unimaginative/cowardly
OR wise/sensible.

later, there came sonny bush, and then 9/11 happened. sonny bush
framed this as a great struggle and americans dug into their heels for
what looked like a long hard conflict. but the taliban crumbled almost
overnight. and possibility of greatness vanished into thin air. if
bush were to go for greatness, he had to use the momentum left from
9/11 attacks and the war on terror to do something really big--the
invasion of iraq and the remaking of the whole region into a nascent
liberal democracy. well, so much for that. some people complain that
bush has his hands tied behind his back, and that's why we couldn't
really go in and do everything that was necessary. but, do we want
bush to have the war powers of a hitler or a stalin?
and, can we say that the absence of an antagonistic press guarantees
victory? if so, why did the soviet union fail in afghanistan? soviet
rulers didn't have to deal with the 'liberal press' nor with mass
demonstrations. if anything, absence of free press led guys like
hitler, hussein, japanese militarists, and others to make 'great'
decisions which would cost the entire nation dearly.

so, we now face a future without 'the great man' or 'the great
idea'. the likes of castro, kim, chavez, etc don't count. their
influence and popularity are marginal at best or just plain
laughable. so, does this mean that the future will only be determined
by economic statistics, technological change, and so on? of course
not. we may no longer have 'the great man' but we'll always have many
great men in all fields and professions; so, we have the 'great men
theory'. take the advancement of computer technology in the US.
this is due to many great visionaries and geniuses in america, and
america has attracted many of the best from around the world. the
great geek theory?
also crucial for all nations will be the concept of the 'great
system'. the system, unlike idea, is flexible and adaptable. in the
US, we have freedom within the rule of law. free people in the US
don't have to adhere to The Great Idea as everyone in the USSR had to
bow down to marxism. but, there is a certain system that really
works in the US. it can be said to be great. is it democracy?
partly, but not all democracies are the same. some democracies are
more successful because of the cultural values and national characters
of the people.
so, 'great systems' and 'great values' do matter. and people with
great values can be said to be a great people; so there is still the
'great people theory' that applies to the world. why are some national
or cultural groups so much more successful than others? couldn't it
be said that jews are a greater people than bolivian indian
peasants? but, 'great people theory' is unpopular in the
intellectual arena because it sounds 'racist' in our culturally
relativistic world.

it is from such greatnesses--systemic and cultural--that great
individuals can arise. and it's these relatively few people who will
change the future of the world in the arts, science, economics, and
social policy. of course, we must keep in mind that the creative or
adventurous spirit of humanity is individualistic whereas politics and
social policies are about communal or collective needs.
and, it's generally not a good idea to have a super individualist in
politics or social policy. indeed, hitler was a super individualist in
politics--so individualistic that he made himself the only free man in
germany. individualism which represses the individualism of others
sucks. 'the great man' forbids freedom to other men. 'the great idea'
forbids freedom of other ideas.
the statue of the great man has fallen. the tower of the great idea
has come crashing down.
the world is like a great babel but there is much greater chance of
people getting along together even without knowing eachothers'
languages because cultures and customs matters less in today's world
than goods and services--though worldwide use of english certainly
helps. most americans may not know chinese and most chinese may not
know english, americans appreciate the value of cheap labor and the
chinese understand the profitabilty of exporting goods.
so, it's come down to the great system, great individuals, and great
values(or great peoples) which lead to social stability and economic
growth(culture, to this extent, is still very relevant).
a man can be great at the price of a nation's freedom. a nation can
be great at the price of one man's ambition. but, we can have many
little giants in a giant nation.