The time of the reign of Federal Chancellor Bruno Kreisky (1970-1983) is now generally regarded as something specific; as an "era"; and, quite often, als Austria's "golden age". But is this justified? For couldn't one assume that those thirteen years are seen as happy ones only because of more or less accidental confluence of several positive developments? Kreisky would just have profited from them; as would have any other politician. In short, was there really something unique and specific that Kreisky could contribute as a political leader? Has he merited his reputation and this his posthumous beatification? We assume - as do several American authors - that leadership matters; and that different styles of leadership prompt different responses among the public. Kreisky had an impact. As a political leader he made a difference. The style of "educative discourse" he projected upon the public found an echo as there was latent demand for more open discourse, liberalism and pluralism. He thus acted as a catalyst in the change of Austria's political culture; which, on its turn, was a prerequisite for a more general modernisation.
