True Statesmanship: Aristotle on the Science, Art, and Character of Rule

• In Event: Friendship and Action in Conversation with the Ancient Greeks

Abstract

This paper presents a chapter of a book project on Aristotle's theory of political rule. In particular, the paper examines statesmanship, Aristotle’s widely misunderstood ideal of political rule. Statesmanship is misunderstood because, like prevailing leadership theory, it is interpreted as a static and universal ideal. Statesmanship is not static because it is a constellation of moral and intellectual virtues that are activated in different ways according to the needs of the present. The statesmanship of Washington is different than Lincoln. Although all statesman exhibit the excellences of political science, craft, and prudence, the practice of these virtues is inherently attuned to the demands of the present. Moreover, like all politics, statesmanship is particularized—it admits of few universal rules or lessons. Statesmanship cannot be universal because excellence in practical rule varies in kind according to one’s community and office. The statesmanship of the U.S. President should look materially different than that of the Roman consuls. Attempts to interpret Aristotle's Politics, or statesmanship in general, as elevating a single, universal ideal of political rule miss the essential core of the phenomenon at hand. By presenting an alternative account of statesmanship, this paper illustrates an Aristotelian ideal that is more particularized and accessible than many suppose.

Author

• Michael Promisel, Catholic University of America