I was going to ask this within another discussion, but I think it deserves one of it's own.
But, that which makes a great leader rarely makes a successful politician these days.
Politics is a power struggle. What we are witnessing unfortunately is "theatre" without any compromise or search for common ground. A great politician navigates the struggle and succeeds in accomplishing a mission. What can be accomplished is what counts.
Prudence, I believe, is the old answer, & I am partial to it. That's the defining virtue of the politician.
A great politician is one that can get the otherside to agree with him as well as to gladly follow him
Would you happen to have examples?
Sure thing, guy. The two politicians which I think showcase modern politics, its predicament & the godlike authority, are Lincoln & Churchill. Rarely were wiser men the authors of greater, or more necessary, slaughter; maybe never. Rarely was there such a great confrontation between the necessity & justice, to foreground the nobility of man. So far as I can tell, they are the exemplars of prudence, because they were the least moralistic politicians.
Godlike authority? I don't know what you mean exactly, in relation to prudence.
Prudence means figuring out authority & necessity. In the case of authority, modern creatures are almost altogether unfit to see the obvious, much less to wonder at it. If you ask people with a bit of education, they'll garble up some regurgitated Max Weber, which you'd have to take bak to Nietzsche & Hegel, which you'd have to take back to Rousseau & Locke, & so on back to the origins.
Modern political authority is meant to replace God. Hobbest called the Leviathan the Mortal God. He also replaced God with Justice in the Biblical phrase, you may know it, the fool has saith in his heart...
Lincoln knew that this does not cut much ice; when it comes to the slaughter, when you have to send so many people to their deaths without guarantees of success, than the question whether man is fated comes up again, with the question about the ground on which political opinions are founded.
Churchill was not as big on talking about divine justice as Lincoln was, but he also showed that politics requires purposes, & therefore is anti-scientific. Divine justice gives a better account of politics. From the point of view of politics, there are final causes, & therefore also accidents; from the point of view of modern science, there are no final causes, & therefore no accidents.
Divine justice does give a better account of politics, if not a comprehensive one, at least one that can be understood with clearer fundamentals by more people. However, I don't think purpose need be anti-scientific. Seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
What purpose does anything have from the point of view of modern science? From the point of view of modern science, aren't all human purposes arbitrary?
If I spill my morning coffee, I tend to call that an accident. Science would point out it's nothing of the kind. There are physical laws governing the spilling... If I decide to throw it out, the same laws apply there, too, whatever I call it... When you do not intend to do something, its happening is called an accident--that's just unscientific. So also with purposes. Whether you intend to do something or not does not influence the scientific study of it.
Unscientific is not necessarily anti-scientific.