Bill Herbst’s newsletter has a very interesting article today about the fact that the last three presidents have had a strong Leo component. Bill Clinton is Leo Sun/Libra rising, George W Bush is Cancer Sun/Leo rising, and Obama is Leo Sun/Aquarius rising.
You can , but these are the points I found most fascinating:
Leo is the star of the zodiac—not “star” as in heavenly , but “movie-star” as in Hollywood-type celebrity and fame. Leo is the quintessential performer, in essence an actor who creates a character, then performs that character in real life. Leo is always and finally the hero or heroine of the drama, the star of his or her own movie. Unlike numerous other signs,
Leo loves the limelight and blossoms at center-stage. In astrological elements, water always finishes a phase of growth, whereas fire always initiates a new growth process. So, the quest for personal security reaches its apex in Cancer and is followed by Leo, which begins a new quest for social security. In other words, Leo is personally secure, but socially insecure. That paradox may seem to contradict much of the traditional astrological literature about how Leos are to the point of bravado, but this is why performing a role is so critical. Leo is unconcerned with private, inward identity. Instead, Leo is completely obsessed with social image reflected in the eyes of others. By creating a character to perform and writing himself the lead role in an heroic script, Leo achieves the impression of social security for us, the audience. He appears completely confident in who he is (or wants us to believe he is). This goes far beyond the approach of “fake-it-til-you-make-it,” all the way to “fake-ituntil- you-believe-it-and-forget-that-it-was-ever-fake….
Dubya sees himself in part as an anti-hero. The “character” Bush chose and scripted is an anti-intellectual, someone disdainful of pointy-headed professors and effete snobs. The immense pride Dubya takes in his intellectual inadequacies and verbal gaffes is almost perverse in its stubborn defiance. His snobbery is about wealth rather than intellect, especially family wealth. Bush is the Machiavellian Prince, but the role he performs for the public is the affable, folksy, dude rancher who clears brush and loves being a War President and Commander-in-Chief. For Bush, family and the inner circle of dutiful and oyal supporters are everything—the public be damned—and that’s where the Cancer archetype dominates the script for his movie.
By contrast, Bill Clinton, with his 11th-house Sun [and more importantly, people-pleasing Libra on the ascendant], would sell his soul to be liked or, better yet—loved) by everyone. God, how Clinton wanted to be loved as President!! And that urge got him into very hot water. With Bush, the opinions of anyone outside his personal circle didn’t matter. With Clinton, everyone was inside the circle, and all opinions mattered, at least when those opinions were about Bill himself.
Compared to Clinton and Bush, Barack Obama’s chart contains a broader distribution of sign archetypes, with less extremism in emphasis….A primary issue of the Leo-Aquarius axis is individuality versus collectivity—goodness for oneself weighed against the greater good for the group as a whole. A related issue is the evolution of egalitarian societies and governments emerging out of monarchies justified by “divine right of kings.” Much of the Enlightenment in the 17th-18th centuries pushed forward the politics of freedom and social equality, and the 19th and 20th centuries carried that struggle into the streets. Only baby steps have been taken thus far, however.
We can add the spiritual level to the sociopolitical and assert that Leo-Aquarius struggles to deal with the idea of “the cult of personality,” where one charismatic individual leads many followers who believe that person to be if not totally infallible, at least savior-like in the sense of a cosmic who will protect and do for us what we cannot seem to do alone. At the very least, people hope for inspiration from such individuals.
This is an interesting take on the Leo component and a brilliant integration of the Leo/Aquarius archetype. I would expect the royal sign of Leo to be present in the charts of Presidents; there needs to be a fairly strong ego identification to believe that you are The One who can lead the free world into the 21st century.