Principled, or, The Worst Quality of a Politician

I know of a truly principled leader. His name is Adolf Hitler. In pursuing his principle, i.e. the purging of undesirables, he diverted military resources into their gathering and killing. These very resources were, more or less, exactly what German army needed to capture Moscow before Russian winter befell upon them. After that, all was history.

I know of a truly unprincipled leader. His name is Abraham Lincoln. Elected by radicals wanting the end of slavery, he made one concession after another to please the border states into staying in the Union. Over and over, he repeated that his war fought for union of the states, not end of state rights or slavery. Obviously, like any unprincipled person, he changed his tone when the situation asked for such change: midway through the war, he proclaimed the emancipation of the slaves.

These days, when people speak of good politicians, or "statesmen" (sorry, ladies, history has spoken, and it's quite sexist until last century), they speak of principles and sticking to those. From right to left, people are calling upon their leaders to stick to their principles, to refuse compromises. To refuse the approach of others shows strength, they say, and to compromise is spineless. And, obviously, the government promptly grinds to a stop. Funny enough, then people blame lack of principle for this failure to govern.

Who are the most principled leaders? The tyrants, the dictators, the despots. After all, what is "principled" anyway? Isn't it to do whatever you want (that is, you believe in) regardless of opposition? When a leader decides upon only his own preferences, what do you call such leader? Tyranny.

Frankly, when people speak of "principles," people actually ask for something else. People ask for their leaders to make the right calls, especially when oppositions are wrong. Here is the catch: how do you know what is right and wrong? Take Holy Roman Empire. When Charles V pursued his role as Catholic emperor, he drove his empire and kingdom into the greatest power of Europe; when Ferdinand II pursued the same thing, he drove his empire into Thirty Years War and degradation. Take Germany (or, more precisely, Prussia). When Frederick II (Frederick the Great) positioned his kingdom in the middle of a massive dual-front war, he held out long enough for his enemies to disintegrate, gained Silesia for his kingdom and forever glory for his military skills; when Wilhelm II positioned his empire in the middle of a massive war, Germany was defeated, her youth was slaughtered, her industrial lands and colonies were pawned to France and England.

Humans are not God. Situations are not frozen. Events are not static. To err is to human. Last time I check, all politicians, good, bad, or middle ground, have not attained omnipotence yet. Thus, they will, from time to time, hold the wrong beliefs. To hang onto those beliefs, to refuse reconsideration of policies, to close ears to opposition will, sooner or later, bring about disasters.

Therefore, principled is the (one would argue, defining) quality of tyrants, of dictators, of despots. A good politician must avoid it. Now, given that a good politician must also act well, such politician will probably do well to conceal his avoidance of principles. Oh well, such is life.