WHY STUDY POLITICAL LEADERS? The big questions: What is a leader? What do we mean when we say that leaders matter for outcomes? Why might the attributes of particular leaders be less important than we think? When are specific leaders most likely to important to specific outcomes?

WHAT EXACTLY IS A POLITICAL LEADER? To what extent should we be looking at official titles to determine who the key political leaders in a society are? What functions do leaders perform that separate them from other types of important political actors (say, most members of the national legislature or a nation’s supreme judicial body)? What makes a leader a political leader vs. being an activist? Is a popular band leader who supports a cause a political leader? Is Sarah Palin or Martin Luther King? Do political leaders have to work within government? Do they have to be associated with a group?

Some key ideas from Masciulli, et al.: What exactly is political leadership? The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines a ‘leader’ as ‘the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country’. ‘To lead’ means to ‘cause (a person or animal) to go with one by drawing them along; or to show (someone) the way to a destination by preceding or accompanying them’. Moreover, leadership is a symbolic activity mediated by culture, for leaders as ‘identity entrepreneurs’ are engaged in providing myths/visions to create, reshape or enhance national and other political cultures. In the process, leaders and followers themselves are affected by what they help create (Rousseau 1987; The Social Contract, II, 7).

HOW DO WE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT LEADERS ARE? What is the difference between a specific leader being a necessary cause of an outcome, versus being a sufficient cause verses just having an influence on the outcome? (Example: The choice of George W. Bush to launch an invasion of Iraq) Is it worth distinguishing between “eventful” (historically important contributors to outcomes) leaders and “event making” leaders who move history in an entirely different direction? (Example: Madison vs. Washington; Obama vs. Reagan) If you look at ten really evil, “event making leaders” and find that all of them have condition x, can we safely assume that a leader with condition x will be nasty tyrant? Wouldn’t we also need to also look at a sample of really good leaders to see if condition x is present in all “event making leaders”? Wouldn’t we also need to look at a sample of bad but ultimately unsuccessful would-be tyrants to see if condition x is present? Wouldn’t we also would want to also look for other variables; do all of these tyrants also have condition Y?

DO LEADERS REALLY MATTER AS MUCH AS WE TEND TO THINK THEY DO? Why might our common sense explanations of important historical outcomes give too much credit to specific leaders? Is this a case of our human tendency towards “reductionism” Why do we like easy answers? Is it due to a biological disposition to accept strong leadership? Why do leaders themselves overstate the role and capacity of leaders… especially in democracies? Think about those crazy presidential candidate promises Are Americans especially susceptible to the belief that certain individuals determine outcomes (vs. fate)? Think about Founder worship and the Constitution for a minute But then, isn’t the belief in “hero leaders”—especially political elites--un-American in some ways (because it would justify strong government)?

DO LEADERS MATTER AS MUCH AS WE TEND TO THINK THEY DO? Why have social scientists long been too skeptical of how much leaders matter? Or at least that we can study the topic well? This is the next slide, but let’s just say it now: Leaders often don’t matter very much and can be safely ignored for some purposes Why is it so methodologically challenging to study why leaders do what they do? What is the alternative to studying leaders and why have most social scientists largely ignored what they see as the “idiosyncratic” qualities of leaders and concentrated on “structural” explanations of important historical events? – Social scientists like to predict rather than just explain past behavior… We look for trends, not specifics – Thus, social science tend to look at widespread, recurring, and measurable phenomena rather than the unique qualities of individual leaders to explain things

WHEN/WHICH LEADERS TEND TO MATTER MOST? What are some of the key contextual variables that shape how much a given leader matters? (This is the key part of Fred Greenstein’s 1967 article, esp. pp ) What times and types of situations increase the influence of individual leaders? (Example: What political times lead some presidents to be considered “great”?) How does the “location” of an leader in the political order impact her importance to outcomes? (Example: Why is it easier to be a more consequential PM in British politics than is the case with American presidents?) Why do variations among leaders’ personal strengths and limitations impact their influence on outcomes? Example: How do you think Pres. Obama’s background and personality traits impact his leadership and decisionmaking? Example: Does the US primary system pick the best qualities?