America, or shall we say, the United States in particular, has severe leadership problems. We decry them in terms of politics as “partisanship,” but they are much broader than simply that. During our 100 years of industrialization we seemed to have a pretty good pool of leaders – business, industrial, scientific, mercantile, military, religious, philosophical and political. They weren’t deemed to be perfect by everyone, but they were relative giants in society and with their influences they appear to have set standards for others who would be leaders. A handful articulated this role, most simply lived it and comported themselves in what might be described as statesmanlike, in that they took larger views of life and growth, exploration and discovery, and responsibility, in their fields.
We have leaders among us now, of course, but… well, they’re different. And I mean no slighting of women in history, also of course, and the phenomenon of this devolution of leadership seems, unfortunately to have afflicted them, too. How to describe it? Or, how to describe a cause of it?
Let’s consider who a few of today’s “leaders” are. We know them: Trump and some in his administration; certain Democrat leaders including Mrs. Clinton; Congressional leaders, both majority and minority party; numerous “celebrities” from the entertainment industries – indeed, “celebrity” is a critical component of most “leadership,” today; ultra-wealthy business and financial leaders, like Federal Reserve governors and the Chair-man or –woman; the heads of corporations like Google, Facebook, Disney, Microsoft and a hundred more… maybe 500 more… maybe 5,000. But we hear of these business/industrial leaders usually with a descriptive term before their name: billionaire. Maybe, multi-billionaire. It’s a clue to what’s happened to leadership.
Money? Is that all that’s wrong with today’s leaders? They’re disoriented by wealth? Prudence would say, “no, not just money, but it’s a part.”
Leaders often have power. Charles Krauthammer had power as a “thought-leader” for example. Was he a celebrity? Somewhat, thanks to television, but he was a columnist and never described himself as a TV personality. No billionaire, certainly, but he had power for two reasons I can discern: 1) He was a well-read, well-educated observer of things powerful and political, who lucidly expressed his opinion with refreshing honesty, clarity and consistency, and 2) He was honest to himself and to his readers, a refreshing and rare quality from which his power derived. It has been a treat to be alive and literate during his lifetime. Most people under, say, 40, would not list him in their panoply of “leaders,” sadly.
Throughout history the most powerful, threatening, feared person has been in charge. He (occasionally she) could push people around, command their virtual, or real, slavery and surface fealty, and literally take the profits of their work. They could even “lead” them into battles but never were they “leaders” in the sense that they were going in directions that others wanted to go or felt “right” about going. That is to say, the mission driving the King – or kingpin – was not shared by those afraid to not follow him. Mission and Leadership appear to be of a set, virtually inseparable. Does this illuminate any of the apparent differences between leadership during “America’s” biggest century and now?
Intentionally or not, every leader, by default, has some kind of “mission,” possibly only because he or she has articulated what it is that has spurred his or her actions. Lo, and behold! That sudden mission is agreed-to, thanks to our being awash in communications, by a group of people who, in the majority of instances, know only a thin shell of what issues are at stake. But, they are behind “the leader” all the way. One might say that the “size” of the leadership is a function more of the extent of the communications about the issues than it is about the quality of the leader or of the importance of the issues… or of the “principles” that motivate the leader and the followers.
In earlier times, when it could take days for news to reach a significant number of readers – always readers – powerful, or strong-willed people, at least, would start their journey towards a big idea, big goal, big industry or discovery, more nearly alone. His (most often, his) “followers” numbered in the single digits or low tens. It required courage, then. There were no happenstance leaders during the big century. Right or wrong they were real, and honest to their missions. If they and the mission failed, they faced failure… sometimes failure that meant the loss of everything. Lincoln.
Morality has a way of guiding, cajoling, molding and even forcing bad actions to end and bad actors to leave the stage of public influence. In fact, morality is essential to the success of leadership. Even today, when institutions and agencies do their level best to remove themselves from moral judgment, every person who claims to lead this or that movement – even “flash” movement – first lays out some “moral” position around which the latest crowd of followers might rally. Something is wrong and thanks to this “leader’s” vision, that wrong has been exposed and with (your) help, and money, that wrong will be ended and “things” will be set right. Communications unlike anything humans have been exposed to throughout evolution, play a big role in two ways: 1) newsworthy crowds can be assembled in a moment and, 2) the “wrong” that unites them need not be agreed to by even a significant fraction of the nation’s population.
What is “right” and what is “wrong,” anyway? Leadership, historically, has generally been connected to “leaders” who exercise courage in defense of what is “right.” Clear examples were seen during the American Revolution. Not only were the patriots fighting the government they were born under, but fighting with guns and cannons and real bullets. Not all of their fellow colonists were with them, many helped to fight against them. But motivating Washington and every Continental soldier who endured with him and other officers, was the powerful belief that what they were trying to do would yield a greater “good.” They believed they were doing what was right – not just more comfortable or more profitable, but right in terms of freedom, independence and justice.
The “patriots” comprised not even half of the British colonists… not even a quarter. Their mission would have appeared futile in many instances yet they soldiered on. How? They were both blessed and cursed by the paucity of information available to them. Cursed because they did not know the nature or size or deployment of the forces arrayed against them; blessed because they, unlike their modern descendants, were not burdened by too much thinking about their circumstances or by too much planning of how to avoid failure.
That is to say, they didn’t “know enough” to stop believing in the rightness of their mission: bumblebees unaware that they could not fly. The combination allowed their belief and trust in Washington and others to not just maintain but strengthen, until they flew in the face of the greatest possible headwinds. Is that “faith?” Trust in something one cannot see? Leadership is connected to that ability of humans – to believe in something greater than one’s self.
Modern leaders are more likely to be constrained by a flood of information. Indeed, most of our current “leaders” are called so because of financial success. Nearly every move they make is “hedged” in half a dozen ways such that they, personally, cannot lose. Even if their leadership of great businesses “fails,” they have arranged for a “golden parachute” that lets them leave wealthy. Their “leader-ship” carries minimal risk… to themselves. Their “mission” is personal gain and not the gain of a people or of a nation. They may be giants, dollar-wise, but are mis-identified as leaders. More and more, “success” is a measure of mere wealth. Even top political leaders leave office with more money than they entered with, and many become multi-millionaires by selling their celebrity – or notoriety. Money.
