This is long and unclear. What exactly is the claim, argument or insight here?

Is this saying that great leaders are special? Or is it that special leaders or great. Or is it that special/great leaders are liked by the masses - and have an ethical/moral viewpoint.

This all seems rather circular. Tautological.

Please clarify.

Yes, I agree WW. I am unsure of what the nexus of this article is? Mother Theresa, after all, though a good woman, was hardly a "leader", and Mao Zedung, though undoubtedly a charismatic leader, is the reason the average young Chinese person to-day has little or no knowledge of Confucianism. It would be crass and illogical to argue that the writer's views on Confucianism were not valid: just as it would be to argue that the tenets of Buddhism or of many other philosophies are not theoretically inspiring and up-lifting. But in practice surely Confucianism was one of the factors which led to China's history being represented in many Chinese texts as a spiral: it neither advanced nor receded but held the country in stasis for centuries.

My conclusion, upon finishing this article was that, given the realities of to-days economic/political climate, if what is needed is the kind of leader described therein, there is no hope for us at all. Surely this can't be what was meant?