“Meaningful political choices rarely involve a single variable; wise decisions require a composite of political, economic, geographical, technological and psychological insights, all informed by an instinct for history […] the leader, like the novelist or landscape painter, must absorb life in all its dazzling complexity.”

There is a longstanding debate about whether politics, and especially executive leadership, is more akin to an art or a science. Henry Kissinger definitely places himself on the side of art, viewing politics as an indefinable essence that depends upon the genius of the practitioner, and not just the rote application of a particular skill. Kissinger suggests that, given the sheer complexity of politics and the uniqueness of every situation, the results will never follow the precise formulas of a laboratory.

“Leading thinkers—social historians, political philosophers and international relations theorists alike—have imbued inchoate forces with the strength of destiny. Before ‘movements,’ ‘structures’ and ‘distributions of power’, one is told, humanity is denied all choice—and by extension, cannot but abdicate all responsibility. These are, of course, valid concepts of historical analysis, and any leader must be conscious of their force. But they are always applied through human agency and filtered through human perception. Ironically, there has been no more efficient tool for the malign consolidation of power by individuals than theories of the inevitable laws of history.”

Kissinger’s concern is that many scholars, including some of his fellow ‘realists,’ are too willing to downgrade the importance of human beings, instead looking to general laws and concepts that move the world forward. All politics is ultimately the result of human action, though, and so it matters what humans believe. Kissinger maintains that humans are more likely to succumb to fate if they believe that they have no choice, and will be more capable of great actions if they instead believe that great actions are within their reach.

“[Adenauer] chose a course both humble and daring: to confess German iniquities; accept the penalties of defeat and impotence, including the partition of his country; allow the dismantling of its industrial base as war reparations; and seek through submission to build a new European structure within which Germany could become a trusted partner. Germany, he hoped, would become a normal country, though always, he knew, with an abnormal memory.”

Adenauer orchestrated one of the most remarkable turnarounds in the history of foreign policy, turning a hyperaggressive and genocidal state into a contrite, humble member of the family of European nations.