Bush can claim that the only role of a leader is to unify the populace behind him, maintaining a strong national (patriarchal?) presence in the face of a dangerous universe. Even critics of such concepts, working within a patriarchal milieu, seem unable to see beyond it, claiming that nothing matters except producing a unified national voice, with the only alternative being to find even stronger leaders who will produce and even more unified national voice (Clark, 2004, p. 21+). In this respect, then, Clark sees both Albright and Thatcher as admirable leaders for their times, leading by masculine-style strength. Moreover, she notes that, in that scenario, "Good leaders are those whose rhetoric best persuades" (Clark, 2004, p. 21+); both Albright and Thatcher were masters of rhetoric. .

             Clark also believes that the way democracies-whether the American republic or the British constitutional monarchy-could survive as patriarchies after media became prevalent-thus allowing multitudinous voices and beliefs to be heard-was by limiting the range of public discourse. It is arguable that both Albright (especially Albright, in her ambassadorial positions) and Thatcher were at pains to "define the legitimate 'topics of conversation'" (Clark, 2004, p. 21+). Indeed, Clark sees this as the primary role of political leadership in modern mass societies (2004, p. 21); both Albright and Thatcher were experts in this.

             The leadership development of Madeleine Albright.

             Madeleine Korbel Albright was born in 1937 in Prague, Czechoslovakia, to Josef and Anna Korbel. Escaping the Nazi occupation, her family went to England where she was raised as a Catholic, although her family was Jewish, with many, including three of her grandparents, being killed being killed by the Nazis (Nolan, 1997, p. 1). After the war, the family returned to Czechoslovakia, only to escape again-this time fleeing the Soviet Communist influence-in 1948.