Churchill or Carter: Why Tough Leadership Prevails Over ‘Nice’ Leadership

Almost simultaneously, the passing of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and the release of Netflix’s Churchill at War brought a sharp contrast into focus. It’s a question we’ve wrestled with for decades: Do we value leaders who are moral, clean, and “nice,” or those who are tough, pragmatic, and willing to deliver results at any cost?

Winston Churchill, to me, represents the pinnacle of leadership. His greatness, paradoxically, stemmed from traits that many would call flaws: he was abrasive, blunt, and unapologetically ambitious. Yet, it was this very “not-nice” nature that allowed him to face down the greatest threat the modern world has ever known—Nazi Germany.

Churchill’s ability to inspire resilience, even as Britain endured relentless bombings during World War II, came not from offering comfort or optimism, but from demanding sacrifice. He didn’t sugarcoat the truth. Instead, he famously pledged “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” as the cost of survival. It was precisely his ruthlessness, determination, and willingness to challenge appeasement that saved Britain and the free world.

Churchill’s Unconventional Greatness

Churchill’s journey to greatness wasn’t smooth or celebrated. He was controversial, often unpopular, and dismissed by many of his peers as egotistical. His career was defined by contradictions: a staunch defender of democracy who frequently clashed with it, a liberal who at times displayed conservatism, and a leader who switched political parties not once but twice.

What made him indispensable was his clarity of purpose. While others in Europe were capitulating to Hitler or seeking to negotiate peace, Churchill stood firm. Even when sidelined from government, he used his voice, his persona, and his unrelenting resolve to rally the British people. His iconic cigars, “V for Victory” gesture, and heavy rhetoric turned him into a living symbol of resistance.

Churchill demanded enlistment, not agreement. He promised war, not peace. He embraced the dramatic stage of leadership, knowing that his personality and conviction were critical weapons against Hitler. By the time Britain crowned him Prime Minister—without an election—he had already become the lone bulwark standing between Nazi Germany and global domination.

The Carter and Obama Contrasts

In stark contrast, Jimmy Carter embodied the ideal of moral and considerate leadership. Humble, clean, and deeply ethical, Carter sought to lead with diplomacy and decency. Yet, as his presidency demonstrated, those qualities alone aren’t enough in a world filled with adversaries who see kindness as weakness.

Under Carter, the U.S. saw the fall of Iran to the Khomeini regime, a development that reshaped the Middle East for decades. While his intentions were noble, his inability to project strength during moments of crisis weakened America’s global standing. Carter’s legacy as a president reflects the limitations of idealism when confronted with the harsh realities of geopolitics.

Barack Obama, similarly, embodied a leadership style rooted in hope and dialogue. Awarded a Nobel Peace Prize early in his presidency, he emphasized global harmony. Yet during his administration, the rise of jihadism, the consolidation of Iranian influence, and the invasion of Ukraine revealed the risks of a leadership style that prioritizes optimism over decisiveness.

The Churchillian Leadership Israel Needs

The lessons of Churchill’s leadership resonate powerfully today, particularly for Israel. Since October 7, 2023, Israel has faced an existential threat from Iran and its proxies. Hamas’s brutal attack forced Israel into its own Churchillian moment, requiring tough, uncompromising resolve to confront an emboldened enemy.

Just as Churchill rejected appeasement, Israel has stood firm against the pressures of Western powers urging restraint. The Biden administration and European leaders have approached the conflict with a Chamberlain-like mindset, seeking compromise even as Hamas and Iran continue their aggression. Israel, like Churchill’s Britain, has chosen resilience.

Evacuating towns, enduring relentless rocket fire, and mobilizing a nation, Israel has demonstrated the fortitude of a people willing to sacrifice today for a safer tomorrow. This is the kind of leadership the moment demands: decisive, bold, and unyielding.

A Call for Churchillian Leadership

Today’s world faces a leadership vacuum. The rise of authoritarian regimes, unchecked extremism, and geopolitical instability require leaders who can balance moral clarity with unrelenting strength. Churchill exemplified this balance, showing that toughness need not come at the expense of vision.

For Israel and the world, the need for such leadership is urgent. The mission to eliminate the threats posed by Iran and jihadism cannot be accomplished through appeasement. It requires a leader who is rough, commanding, and willing to act decisively in the face of adversity.

Churchill understood that leadership is not a popularity contest. It’s about making the hard choices when the stakes are highest. As we reflect on Carter’s and Churchill’s legacies, the answer is clear: history rewards those who lead with resolve, even when it’s not “nice.”