Every political leader at some point in their career should have some semblance of concern about their legacy. What am I going to be remembered for by historical pundits, should always be the concern of any prudent and self respecting leader. In the United States more than perhaps any other nation, this has become a matter of great concern because of the symbolic and real responsibility of being the leader of the most powerful  nation on earth- as a result of the demise of the USSR. It is not necessarily the case that such leaders should have a thoroughly outstanding track record as an administrator, or to hold high positive figures in the opinion polls. Let me throw a few domestic and international names out to you and see if you can comprehend what I am alluding to. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklyn D. Roosevelt , Ronald Reagan Nelson Mandela, F  De Klerk , Mikhail Gorbachev, and  Yitzhak Rabin.

 In 2006 I wrote specifically in a thesis paper about five of these individual leaders that will be immortalize in our memories primarily due to momentous , at times unpopular ,yet important, historical actions on their part. In it I described them as follows: “There are leaders who throughout history understand these subtle changes in international relations and affairs and capitalize on them where necessary. In the late 1980’s arch-conservativeRonald Reagan understood it in his relations with Mikhail Gorbachev   and his “evil empire.” Nelson Mandela and De Klerk recognized the value of change and the need for mutual respect and compromise. [1] Richard Nixon’s name is immortalized in history more for his historic visit to China and efforts at détente than perhaps the Watergate scandal today. Nixon’s cordial diplomatic efforts and gestures of respect and civility towards China help warm relationships between both countries. [2]

In contrast the present US leader threatened to wage a preventive war against North Korea …[3]”

Many of the things that we take for granted today would have been impossible had any of these 5 leaders I singled out not stepped up to the plate and first commence a dialogue with a perceived enemy. Whether the cause for the move was from a position of strength or narrow political interest is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that they were unafraid to make the bold move, communicate and extend a hand in an effort for peace negotiations. China today is fast emerging as a global power because of Nixon.  South Africa with all its present problems is viewed as a model by many social scientists due to the giant steps of both leaders then during the peak of the dreaded dehumanizing and barbaric Apartheid system. The Cold War’s impact are still felt across the globe, but citizens from  Europe and the USA  can sleep a bit more in peace because of former  enemies that ended 40 years of wasted energy , resources and lives during the nuclear arms race.

It is why as nations across the globe attempt to battle the deadly scourge of domestic and global terrorism, the input of the leader of the free world carries much weight. When the history books are been put together , how would it view developments in countries such as  Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea , Iran and others parts of the world where pockets of terrorism are still being practiced ? Who can take the credit if any, for any shift in behavior?  Is talking a sign of weakness? Where are the terrorist that once permeated all of Europe at one time?  Were they eradicated primarily due to the use of the big sticks only or some with the use of political carrots and subtle incentives? Was it the ending of the Cold War or are Europeans dedicated to keeping their continent peaceful, as they via the EU for economic dominance. Many Europeans are secretly taking credit for Libya’s 2003 360 changes . At the same time this is no secret that they abhor the thoughs of another dreadful war with Iran as many reluctantly went along screaming in support of one with Iraq. As such they encourage similar successful Libyan like communication with the Iranian mullahs.  

The debate as to merits of such thinking with forever rage on as oppose to the fear instilled as a result of the demise of recalcitrant and distant cousin. It is a worthwhile model that can be considered as a way forward[4] A SOS to Mr. Blair the Middle East Peace Envoy for  lessons  from his  country’s 400 years of terror struggles  with the  Ireland . Where are the IRA today and why one can ask? I am an optimist, are you? Perhaps there is something in the tea at Oxford that contributes to different perceptions of legacies from those at Yale or Harvard. Yes I’ll ask former first child Chelsea Clinton - an unbiased   and neutral voice of reason in the Clinton dynasty. Let me see, Stanford, does not count .That leaves CondiRice, who is content to fight that old war with Russia’s Putin even after he retired from politics and his busy showing his chiseled body while fishing. Better yet, the young Blair son bypassed his father Alma Marta to study at Yale instead of the prestigious Oxford. What a confusing lot, but again I digress. Say yes to peace, and no to dialogue. Sounds like a catchy slogan that should be patanted immidiately.  Ahhhh legacies! Fishing, golfing, hunting, traversing the southern ranch, Whitehouse weddings, loyalty, these are what matters.