Leadership is the art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal.
(As a note here, I somewhat quarrel with the notion of "a common goal". "Common" among whom? But, let's leave it as is for now.)
Leadership involves (not my definitions):
1. establishing a clear vision,
2. sharing that vision with others so that they will follow willingly,
3. providing the information, knowledge and methods to realize that vision, and
4. coordinating and balancing the conflicting interests of all members and stakeholders.
A leader steps up in times of crisis, and is able to think and act creatively in difficult situations.
As examples, let's look at some world leaders of today's current and recent history: former US President Obama, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkle, the British Prime Minister Teresa May, other European leaders, Russia's President Vladimir Putin, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and our current US President Donald Trump.
All of those mentioned have set and, to some degree or another, achieved the goals they established and for which they fought. By this simple measure of success each could be labeled an "accomplished leader". But, is that sufficient? I think not! To me, a good, or great, leader provides results that make things better for the country and people they represent, or, in times of severe strife, at least not worse.
First, let's look at Putin. To some, if not many, in the West Putin is loathed as despotic, anti-West, self-centered, and all things we purport to despise. However, his job is NOT to have us like him or even admire him. His job is to make Russia "better" - and, if he benefits while doing so, that's a separate issue to him.
Putin took over at a time when Russia, just after the breakup of the Soviet Union, was in chaos and near bankruptcy. With Putin's agenda(s) he has elevated Russia to once again be a true world power, has a high degree of popularity among Russia's people, and Russia's economy hasn't exactly suffered.
Like him or not, agree with his methods or find them despicable, think him an evil person or not, he can arguably be ascribed as being not only an accomplished leader, but at least a good, if not a great, leader. He has made Russia a better place - maybe not for us, but for Russia, itself.
Now, let's look at Netanyahu.
Leader of the only democracy in the Middle East, he is continually beset with enemies on all sides - including the United Nations. And, despite former President Obama's protestations to the contrary, he was never behind Netanyahu or the State of Israel. Or, what's the old saying? "Actions speak louder than words." Yeah, that's the one.
Despite, seemingly, almost the whole world being against Israel, it is thriving with prosperity, innovation, and applies equal treatment of all under its laws.
Even with the US, under President Trump, now being solidly behind Israel & Netanyahu, much of the world still seems against Israel. Despite this, Netanyahu has managed to continue Israel's growth and prosperity. A true sign of a "great leader", not just an accomplished one.
Obama, Merkle, May, and the other European leaders have, it appears, all strived toward the aims and goals set forth by the United Nation's "Agenda 21" and its ideas of "Social Justice"; that is, a steady movement toward a "progressive", socialistic "New World Order". This "New Order" offers the concepts of National boundaries not being desirable and where individual Nations' separate currencies are financially untenable.
Note: For more information on Agenda 21 (and its later update "Agenda 2030"), do a Google or YouTube search for both. It is truly scary. It has everything to do with replacing the way of life we are used to living. If you don't have the energy to do the research, Watch This Video; after watching it (I strongly recommend you do; I have and I've read the Agendas 21 & 2030 and the Social Justice documents - so should you), look at this picture of land owned by the federal government and see if you can find a correlation.
In this, these leaders all come out as "accomplished". But, "great" ones? Are the Nations they lead, or led, better off for their "leadership"? Let's see.
As you read further, it is a fact that any such progressive "New World Order", to be successful, requires a massive dependent class of people. And, its operation would adhere to that stated in George Orwell's famous "Animal Farm" - or, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Massive welfare systems and increasing the number of unskilled immigrants accomplishes this very nicely, thank you very much.
Still not convinced? Well, this may help you in your search for the truth.
In our travels across Europe (Germany, England, France, Italy, Greece, Ireland - to name a few) we have talked to locals. All are in agreement. The Euro (only indirectly in Britain) and the mass importation of "Migrants" (in the US we call them "refugees" - same peoples, however) have, to a goodly degree, decimated their way of life - economically and socially.
The Euro, forced upon all EU members, was based on the German Deutsche Mark - the highest valued currency of the EU. Prices across Europe rose dramatically and almost immediately. People's incomes did not. This was not a good plan for the general population of Europe.
However, such a plan DID coalesce with the aims of the UN, progressives, and the "New World Order". The leaders of Europe's Nations all "jumped on board" - to their peoples' detriment.
Europe, in general, is currently not in the best shape financially. There is a "debt crisis" there. Not a road to betterment, for sure.
The massive waves of "migrants", mostly unskilled, have led to Islamic "No Go" zones across Europe. Note: these stories, while abhorrent to us, should be taken in context. Not all Muslim dominated areas are dangerous. It would be like equating the violent sections of Chicago with the entire United States. However, violence does occur in these restrictive areas as well as other areas - and the governments do little if anything to thwart the violence. For examples, Click Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here as examples.
Look at how things are working out for London as a result of the European progressive movement.
For a last minute update, here is how some apparent "migrants" decided to celebrate New Year's Eve (2017/2018) in France.
The stated progressive/socialistic goals of these European leaders have been met, or are being met, a little more each day. Have such made their Nations better in any way? In a word, "No!"
Here in the US, under the leadership of former President Obama, we have seen "accomplished" leadership abound. But, "betterment" of the country or of our people? Hardly.
Obama, in his campaign promises offered that he would "...fundamentally transform the United States of America" - and, that he did. He made good on his goals and promises. "Accomplished" leadership, this was.
And, he had the maximum support in his mission from an all-too-willing media and an asymptotically increasing wave of progressivism that started way back with Woodrow Wilson between 1913 and 1921.
One needed only to analyze Obama's slogans to get a clue what his administration(s) were about - progressivism couched under a different name.
Under Obama's leadership we saw the first time in history that the United States spent more on welfare than on national defense.
We saw people using "food stamps" swell from 28.2 million at the beginning of Obama's first term as President to some 45.4 million at the end of Obama's second term.
The population of illegal immigrants (the vast majority unskilled) in the US jumped 2.5 million under Obama.
We saw the use of federal government agencies being used against political opponents.
Race relations appears to have worsened under Obama. Thus, giving rise to a "dividing" of America into "Identity Political" groupingss - Just what progressives desire and need.
There was no appreciable decrease in the percentage of Americans who pay no federal income tax during Obama's 2 terms. Or, "betterment" not seen here.
The Justice Department under Obama seemed bent on protecting progressive politicians. The most egregious example is the Hillary Clinton email scandal. That scandal is still unfolding with the latest reports on Huma Abedin's husband's laptop containing classified material and This.
We saw Obama and his administration play very loose with the US Constitution.
Obama and his administration often focused on race vs. facts on matters legal; see Here and Here.
Under Obama's leadership the United States experienced a very large decrease in respect across the globe.
For this next and final note on the Obama administration, remember my above note on progressivism, that progressivism needs a dependent class of people(s).
Perhaps the most sought after policy change by Obama and his administration was a "reform" of our Health Care System. At the onset of Obama's approach to health care change was a statistic: 30 million out of a population of over 300 million people did not have health care insurance. This he sought to rectify.
As I have stated in earlier articles, no experienced, responsible manager/leader would EVER attempt to solve a 10% problem, real or imagined, with a 100% solution. Such, to be charitable, would be considered stupid as well as irresponsible. But, that's exactly what the Affordable Health Care Act [ACA] (a.k.a. obamacare) did.
Recognize that the ACA did NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to make actual health care better or even lower the cost of actual health care. Its only goal was focused on insurance costs. As anyone who pays attention knows, the entirety of the ACA has been a massive failure.
In general, insurance rates have doubled, tripled, and in some cases quadrupled. Even worse, the cost of deductibles skyrocketed making whatever insurance policy one has, most often, virtually worthless. Further, the only people who saw lower, effective insurance rates are those whose rates are heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer - and, remember, over 45% of Americans pay no federal income tax.
When a peoples' health care is administered and controlled by the government, not even to mention that a goodly portion of their ability to pay their regular bills is dependent on the government, a large dependency on that government is created; i.e., progressivism requires dependency on government. One need look no further for the true rationale behind the ACA.
Yes, Obama was an effective and "accomplished" leader. But, a good or great leader? Far from it - just the opposite.
Now, on to our current President, Donald Trump.
After Trump's election I wrote an article noting that the job of President is far different than the leader of a major corporation. In a corporation one can call all the "shots", as it were. If one succeeds, great. If one fails, there's only one person at which to point the finger of "guilt".
A President of the US must rely heavily on supporters to make good on his/her "promises" to the American public. Trump entered office with very little support - even from his own party. A major theme of his, it seems, was dealing with illegal immigration - build a wall. To date no wall has been even authorized or funded by Congress - which is controlled by Trump's own political party.
The media, et. al., was against him; he inherited a staff from former President Obama - most of these were against him; his own party worked against him; Congress delayed in appointing his candidates for Cabinet positions; it seemed endless the lack of support he enjoyed.
Then, a special council was appointed to investigate Trump's, and/or his campaign staff, of colluding with the Russians prior to Trump's election.
Amid all this, calls for his impeachment were seen almost daily. Any rational, applicable cause for such was not advanced.
After a full year of investigating the collusion with the Russians charges, not one shred of evidence has been uncovered. Worse still, the investigation team is almost exclusively populated with Hillary Clinton admirers and Trump "haters". This seems just fine and dandy with the media and many politicians.
What, to me, seems almost incredible is that an act of "collusion" is NOT illegal even if it did occur. So why even have an investigation other than to thwart the President from making good on his promises to the American people?
Lower level federal courts have ruled against Trump, even though the very actions he took were well within existing laws. Of course, these lower courts have been overturned by the Supreme Court - as I predicted.
And, to add insult to injury, former President Obama has formed an action group to effect the, in the site's words, "...mobilizing and training the next generation of progressive organizers and leaders" to directly oppose actions Trump is taking to fulfill his promises to the American people. Such action as a former president taking action against a sitting president is unique in the history of our Nation. As to this OFA, Charles Krauthammer offered us some words of caution.
Now, even with little or no support in attempting to do what the American people expected of him, Trump's list of accomplishments during his first 11 months in office is quite surprising. Here is a link to 172 of them, accomplihsed without the full support he, as President, deserves.
Not one of Trump's accomplishments so far is anything but good for America. To date he has established himself as a very effective & accomplished leader - in spite of those against him.
Is President Trump an "accomplished", "good", or "great" Leader? With only 1/4 of his presidency behind him it is way too early to tell. We will just have to wait and see. But, we all should give him the chance; the chance to succeed in that for which he was elected. Only then can a proper and valid judgement of his leadership be rendered.