On Leadership

In a recent World News and Prophecy article entitled "Leadership Under Seige Around The World," John Ross Schroeder comments on the lack of faith people have in their leaders and in their lack of trust in institutions of any kind. Surely, this is obvious to all. A large majority of people have no trust in any insitutions whatsoever, be they churches, political parties, companies, not-for-profits, international organizations, nations, local governments. In addition, the author correctly notes that people long for trustworthy leaders, and just may grant such leaders improper and unaccountable power. I happen to agree with the analysis of this person in this case (though he fails to apply it to, say, religious organizations, or see the validity of the mistrust, as well as the fact that no human is fit to hold power unaccountable to those they serve). Lest I bite off more than I can chew, however, I would like to comment on the phenomenon of the mistrust, its cyclical nature, its origins, and its cure.

All over the world, leaders are facing rather dissatisfied people. Schroeder refers to the lack of trust and institutional corruption in such organizations as the UN, horrific public approval letters of political parties, presidents, prime ministers, and so forth. Indeed, there are large amount of people in any given nation or organization who act with extreme distrust towards their leaders, with good reason (as I will get to later on). It would be a lie to say I did not share this particular tendency myself, though I am far from extreme in it. Then again, one always knows people further along a certain path for either favorable or unfavorable comparison.

The reasons for the pervasive mistrust in leaders is both natural and entirely proper. According to generational theorists Howe and Strauss, we are in what is called the Fourth Turning, an age of anarchy, where there is little desire for unity, or little unity. In any way, shape, and form, these represent our times. They are times when people spend their effort on personal persuits rather than working towards the common benefit (this is certainly true). Leaders themselves of all stripes have utilized their power for personal benefit. I could give many examples of this, but it would be impolite to do so, as certain groups of people would feel somewhat put upon. There are no types of leaders exempt from this particular, and just, criticism, though. With leaders focused on making service pay for them, it is no wonder that they are not trusted. They simply are not trustworthy. Even if individual leaders may not be corrupt (as difficult as it is to tell that with any degree of certainty), the entire system of leadership all over the place is corrupt. By rewarding seniority rather than talent, by rewarding appearance over reality, and by rewarding pleasant and polite fiction rather than bitter and ugly truth, organizations and nations have gotten the leadership they deserve. This is not a good thing.

Such epochs of mistrust are cyclical, which is itself a good thing, or at least not a bad thing. Whether the cycle ends up being good or bad depends on how societies and organizations react to the defining "crisis" that ends the mistrust and forces people to once again work together to solve some pressing, urgent, and calamitous problem. History is full of good and bad leaders in such dark times (good: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Winston Churchill; not so good: FDR, Jefferson Davis, Louis XVI; really bad: Hitler, Tojo). The result of the crisis depends on the moral fiber of the people more than that of their leader. The South, for example, failed badly in dealing with the crisis of slavery, and thus merited its fall in the Civil War to the more advanced (and more righteous) North. Germany's people before WWII failed also in choosing a demagogue who offered simplistic solutions to difficult problems (such people are a must to avoid in positions of any resopnsible authority), and merited their fall in WWII. While FDR himself was nothing special as a leader (and his policies were downright idiotic), the American people themselves had not been completely corrupted at that time, and so America was more robust. England, more decadent, fared less well, and France, even more decadent than England, fared worse still.

Thus, the cure for the current climate of malaise when it comes to leadership is a sense of iminent and serious crisis that forces people to work together because they cannot make it on their own. The types of leaders that people in such situations choose are one of two kinds. Both leaders are leaders of profound vision. Good leaders are those who share in the sacrifices of their people, and are able to bring good meaning to suffering, avoid (permanent) increases of central government power (for temporary increases, as those of the Civil War, seem inevitable), and explain conflicts in their genuine moral terms. Leaders who are less able fail in one of these aspects, either using crises to seek permanent increases in power, seek to avoid sharing the dangers of the crisis (and are thus cowardly), provide false meaning and vicious (rather than virtuous) moral meaning to problems (usually this involves making a group of people a scapegoat for the crisis). In short, people who wish for an end of the carping attitude towards leadership and long for inspiring leaders and a sense of purpose had better be careful what they wish for. In the end, we get the leaders we deserve. Whether that speaks will or ill depends on ourselves.