This article reflects a reality of history which is both true and dangerous. I observe 2 of the most significant moments reflected by history demonstrate this truth. Two leaders rose from the depths of despair affecting their community; and the consequences for the world were radically different because of who the masses allowed to lead them in their moment "ripe for change."
In Europe, Hitler rose to power in a seemingly democratic manner.
In the USA, FDR rose to meet the challenges of a country in the depths of depression.
One almost destroyed the world and the other saved it. Both were charismatic in their powers of persuasion. Both were men whose timing was ripe. Both mens lives led them inextricably to their moment in time. Yet, the people lifted them up to lead them. Tolstoy was right in his description. "The power of a great leader lies neither in the physical nor moral qualities of him who possesses it. Power is the collective will of the people transferred by expressed or tacit consent to their chosen leader.” Caveat Emptor: Let the Buyer Beware. Beware who you choose.
That is why leadership is really the responsibility of the many and not the province of the few.

Matthew:

You are absolutely right. It is interesting, David Hulme wrote an article on Hitler and Mussolini and shared a similar thought:

“Mussolini and Hitler were intent on recreating the world in response to what they saw as the challenges and opportunities of their times: the Bolshevik revolution, the aftermath of world war, economic and social instability, nationalistic fervor, and public demand for charismatic, problem-solving leadership. That their own psychological needs played a vital role in their attempts is undisputed, yet they would never have risen to the heights of power if significant proportions of their publics had not provided the necessary support.”

This is a great analysis of how the charismatic leader arises in a society. The salient point in your synthesis is the sensitivity of the charismatic leader to the "zeitgeist". This is contrary to the popular notion of the charismatic leader as maniacal egoist. In fact, it is the contrary! An individual who feels the physical or emotional void so deeply among his people that he dedicates his life to fulfilling it. Is the charismatic leader being altruistic? Not totally. In fact, the voids in his life are often similar to the voids he wants to fulfill within others. Based on his social influences, he's the one who has the courage to actually do something about it. That is precisely why the charismatic leader is effective at connecting with the masses--his ability to empathize as well as sympathize.

As you have eloquently articulated, the charismatic leader doesn't create the conditions that prompt his emergence, he merely responds to it. All along the way, carefully preparing in solitude and isolation, awaiting the day of opportunity, until finally time meets preparation. Such careful planning for decades to meet destiny "one day" is the leitmotif of this allegorical hero. If "Ignorance is bliss," the charismatic leader is miserable, because he lacks the luxury of naiveté.

The passion of the charismatic leader often cuts both ways. While he is a response to current conditions, he still is fraught with human frailties. Left unchecked, these frailties often are what cause the descent of the charismatic leader. His greatness and weakness lie in the dedication to a mission he saw far before anyone else.

Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
www.core-edge.com