Do individuals change history? The “great man theory” — the idea that history unfolds because of the actions of individuals like Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte or Ronald Reagan — is out of favor among academic historians these days.
Charismatic individuals might capture popular imagination, they argue, but historical change proceeds from other fundamental social and economic forces.
I concede they are largely right. But there are times when Shakespeare’s line that “there are tides in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, lead on to fortune” rings true. Whose hand is at the helm at the turning of the tide can be crucial.
I thought that last week while reading two very different books. John Lukacs’ “Five Days in London: May 1940” argues that history could have taken a very different path early in World War II. The French and British armies were caving before Germany’s Wehrmacht. The discredited British government of Neville Chamberlain had just fallen. Many in the British government saw negotiation with Hitler as inevitable.
Many also regarded Winston Churchill, the new prime minister, as an alcoholic has-been. But, Lukacs argues, this mercurial old sot rallied his nation, changing the course of history immeasurably for the better. Personality and character did matter.
The second book, Robert Bremner’s “Chairman of the Fed,” is a biography of William McChesney Martin. Martin’s tenure as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board during the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon is less dramatic than a World War II crisis point. Many know of Churchill. Almost no one outside of banking or economics remembers Martin.
One should not discount Martin’s impact on history, however. Though U.S. Sen. Carter Glass was responsible for the initial establishment of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Rep. Marriner Eccles helped transform it into its current structure in 1935, Martin, more than any other individual, made the Fed into the institution we know today. If a less skilled and effective leader had headed the Fed during those 19 years, the economy of our nation might be very different.
When Harry Truman appointed Martin as chairman, the Fed had considerable autonomy on paper but was entirely subservient to the Treasury Department – and hence to the president – in practice. Martin transformed it into a much more capable institution that had effective autonomy within government.
The Fed still made some bad mistakes, particularly under Martin’s successor, Arthur Burns. But our economy is much better off because the Fed now has well-established authority to conduct monetary policy relatively free of congressional and presidential micromanagement.
Martin’s patient, day-to-day leadership shaped the Fed’s institutional capabilities. His willingness to resist political pressure – particularly bullying by Lyndon Johnson in the mid-1960s — helped set precedent. As in 1940, character did change history.
© 2005 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.