When times are good and the ship of state only needs to sail straight, mentally healthy people function well as political leaders. But in times of crisis and tumult, those who are mentally abnormal, even ill, become the greatest leaders. We might call this the Inverse Law of Sanity.
Got that? When society faces a crisis, you want an emotionally unstable nutbag in charge. Or, to put it another way, crazy times call for crazy people.
Somehow, this logic doesn't seem to apply when "great nations" are facing "great villains" in other countries, however. How many cheered the assumed insanity of Hitler? Wasn't one of the reasons the US supposedly had to go over and bomb Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a wacko tyrant who couldn't be reasoned with? And don't even start me on the entire philosophy of the War on Terror, whose central premise is that those being targeted are in the US government's crosshairs because they're motivated by irrational beliefs and their instability means they can't be brought to a diplomatic compromise.
And of course, the idea of "great leaders" is bandied about much in the article but never once defined.
This just goes to show that the WSJ has totally lost it.
But, I guess by their logic that's a good thing!