[oregontim]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

Interesting points. I didn't equate moral courage with reelection, though, did I? I completely agree with your last statement there. Courage might be the opposite of career expediency. In that case, it's more courage, not less.

Still, I draw from that shared well of history we baby boomers were taught in the fifties and sixties, referencing the kind of unifying leadership that FDR and Churchill showed at the beginning of WWII, and Lincoln as he brought the union together during the civil war. The leader who shares the danger and threat, embracing it, rather than covering it up. Roosevelt the day after Pearl Harbor, Churchill during the battle of Britain, Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The leader who shows courage and inspires courage when it is most needed. And in all three cases, reelection or not, assassination or not, the history I learned credits them with effective leadership.

I wanted them as icons and shared memory, not as point of view or taking sides. But I guess our divisions do go back now even into divisions over what was true even 70, 80, 150 years ago. I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.

[oregontim]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

Interesting points. I didn't equate moral courage with reelection, though, did I? I completely agree with your last statement there. Courage might be the opposite of career expediency. In that case, it's more courage, not less.

Still, I draw from that shared well of history we baby boomers were taught in the fifties and sixties, referencing the kind of unifying leadership that FDR and Churchill showed at the beginning of WWII, and Lincoln as he brought the union together during the civil war. The leader who shares the danger and threat, embracing it, rather than covering it up. Roosevelt the day after Pearl Harbor, Churchill during the battle of Britain, Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The leader who shows courage and inspires courage when it is most needed. And in all three cases, reelection or not, assassination or not, the history I learned credits them with effective leadership.

I wanted them as icons and shared memory, not as point of view or taking sides. But I guess our divisions do go back now even into divisions over what was true even 70, 80, 150 years ago. I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.