These are excellent questions and examples. It is certainly true that Britain was covered with pacifism before the war, but that changed when the Nazis began their invasions and Churchill was swept into power. The people changed their minds, and changed their “leader” to reflect that, to carry out their will. This doesn’t diminish his role in defining, giving expression to, and sustaining that will. It just points to a relationship that is more symbiotic than, perhaps, we are used to viewing it as being.

The same would apply to Patton or most generals – even those who combined the authority of the state in their generalship. Even Alexander the Great was initially enabled, then later overruled, by his men, not his foes.

I agree completely with you about the power of rhetoric. But we can take the view that it enables leaders to recruit followers, or that it enables “followers” to recognize who among those competing for their “leadership” best comprehend and represent their thinking. That is not to belittle the power of communication in provoking the shape – even the genesis – of that thinking. It just think it serves to remind us of who is ultimately in charge of the relationship.

Your third point I think is especially thought-provoking – an excellent way to explore the issue. It – especially the last bit – gets right to what Tolstoy was driving at, doesn’t it?

Thanks, Lee, for this. You’ve certainly given me more to do and think about here!