There are many standards by which a leader may be judged, most of them including some sort of 
moral polarity, a standpoint from which to judge a leader which would leave a man like Hitler out of the 
picture entirely.  Looking closely at history however, we see that the men who moved people shared a basic 
set of qualities which have no room to be judged morally: qualities like charisma and will.  In most potential 
leaders these qualities add up to the one larger and more important quality: the ability to sway opinion, and 
make people act on your thinking.  Many leaders we have seen come and go have had many of the more 
intangible qualities mentioned above without possessing the sum ability.  These are the good leaders, the 
kind to surface as U.S. presidents in particular, where a leader is intended to agree with the people and 
follow their mandates.  The great leaders shape the times and in retrospect history itself to their own 
thinking.  Hitler was such a man and here gets his credit.  It is interesting to note that many if not most of 
the leaders who are deemed 'great' by my definition are those who in historical context are viewed as evil.  
Having an unpopular or unusual agenda will do that.  Still, among history's many 'great' monsters, there are a 
few standouts considered on the moral side: among them let me try to place Franklin D. Roosevelt.  FDR 
was, by the definition above, a great leader: he got done what he thought should be done and he shaped the 
course of history.
	For one of the largest and most glaring pieces of evidence of FDR's greatness, look at the first thing 
he did in office.  The president closed every bank in the nation.  This is beyond opposing the occasional 
popularity poll.  This is not something that FDR had the constitutional right to do, and is not even an ability 
of Congress.  Yet FDR did it, and no one asked questions.  In his first moment in office, FDR is already 
defining himself a great leader.
	Next are the legendary 100 days.  During this period FDR passed a bill on average every 7 and a 
half days, and was never rejected by either the Senate or House.  These were not piddling little bills, either, 
these were major acts, things like the Tennessee Valley Authority Act and the National Industrial Recovery 
Act.  One of the most frequently mentioned failures of FDR is that the NRA and a few other acts were 
repealed as unconstitutional.  This is only more evidence for FDR's leadership: basically he put 
unconstitutional legislature right through Congress, on only his own push.  In addition, his record for 
passing legislature during the rest of his terms is one of the highest of any president, and is a very good 
example of FDR's leadership and influence.  A few more specific examples of this in the approach of W.W.II 
require a closer look.
	First, however, look at FDR's most original move yet; the 'fireside chats' radio broadcast.  Media 
use as a politician was FDR's invention, and is the ultimate example of moving the people to your thinking.  
The combination of FDR's closing all banks in the nation and his first 'chat' kept American banks afloat 
without nationalizing them.  In this first move FDR not only swayed opinion but shaped both the repair and 
reform fazes of the New Deal to come, holding America back from moving toward communism.
	Still, there are two points to be made against the above arguments.  The first being that FDR 
shifted to the left in response to popular sentiment.  Well, he did.  In order to lead at all FDR had  to swing a 
bit: 'Roosevelt faced the choice of either providing more radical programs - ones designed to end historical 
iniquities in American life - or deferring to others who puts forth solutions to the nation's ills.' (APP p.447 ).  
In doing so, he was not only moving in the direction he would most likely have chosen on his own ( albeit 
later on ), but he was defeating other potential leaders, demagogues like Father Charles Coughlin, perhaps 
the most convincing way of proving himself a superior leader.  The shift earned him a landslide as well.
	The second point is that Roosevelt's success in Congress and his fleeting moment of dictatorship 
over the banks were not unique to Roosevelt, but were in fact options that even the most uncharismatic 
president would have had open to him with the nation in the state it was.  True, the nation was ready to try 
some new things, but these were very new things, and Roosevelt actually went ahead and did them, 
confident that he could actually go through with it.  Can we claim that another president would have even 
tried what Roosevelt actually accomplished?  Not without some difficulty.  Yet even if FDR was only 
working miracles on a public ready to believe in him, in looking at Roosevelt's action in approaching World 
War II we see him oppose and in some cases overmaster public opinion.
	First of all, even as a 'great' leader, Roosevelt couldn't have been expected to stop the first political 
manifestations of a pacifism trend that had started before he ever made office; the Neutrality Acts were 
going to pass.  Roosevelt could only express reservations.  
	FDR's first major political action against the pacifist movement may seem minor but could have had 
some far reaching implications.  In blocking Republican Senator Ludlow's proposal for a nationwide popular 
vote of war that Congress could only second, FDR stopped a dangerous trend which could conceivably have 
culminated in American inaction throughout a German victory in W.W.II; Congress would have been 
helpless.  The popularity had been behind Ludlow, but FDR changed the course of events by sheer clout: 
leadership ability.
	Slowing the trend was obviously not all FDR intended to do however, and so he began to repeal 
the Neutrality Acts.  Roosevelt was so bold as to call a special session of Congress specifically to give the 
cash and carry arms policy back to the allies.  Congress passing this bill was the beginning of the turnaround 
initiated chiefly by FDR.
	Still the pace was not where Roosevelt wanted it, and as Congress began allocating more of the 
budget to defense, FDR stepped up the war preparation by asking for a peacetime draft.  Congress 
consented.  Any of these many pushes toward war readiness by Roosevelt might have made the difference in 
the war, all of them together probably did make the difference, and all of them are examples of FDR moving 
America toward the war readiness he wanted.
	Finally FDR dragged public opinion in his wake once again, calling for America to become 'the 
great arsenal of democracy' for the Allied powers, a policy now blatantly against the Axis powers.  
Somehow, Roosevelt got Congress to make him, personally, the 'great arsenal of democracy', getting himself 
full power over the nation's arms.  This is the most compelling evidence for FDR's greatness as a leader; he 
actually got himself the power to give away U.S. armament completely legally, a feat comparable to Hitler's 
being granted 4 years of dictatorial power, given the difference in the governments of the U.S. and Germany.
	We see that, in attempting to clear up the wreckage of the depression and in preparing the nation 
for World War II, FDR proved himself a great leader, bending other's thinking to his own, and putting some 
amazing bills through Congress.  In addition to FDR's 'greatness' in getting his own views expressed, we see 
a greatness in Roosevelt's effect on the course of events.  There were several paths that could have taken 
place: America might have fallen on it's face completely after the depression, or the Allies, without U.S. 
help, fallen to Hitler.  FDR truly shaped history.