“The Fine Print”, by Michael Schrader

IT'S ABOUT LEADERSHIP, STUPID!

(Written 16 September 1998. Published in the Neighborhood Journal. Posted 13 July 2009.)

With the recent release of the Ken Starr report, Part One (yes, there are more parts, on Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, etc. to come), has come the endless discussion on whether or not the President should stay in office. The choruses from the presidential defenders have been two-- the "it's a private affair, so leave him alone" defense, and the "other people have done it, so why shouldn't the President?" defense. Both, of course, are hogwash.

When a person is elected to office, his or her private life basically ceases to exist. Why? Everything, both public and private, is a reflection on his or her constituents. We look to our elected officials for leadership; after all, that is why we elect them. Leadership not only means political and military leadership, but moral leadership as well. That has been the way it has been since the beginning of recorded history. The truly great leaders in the history of mankind have been those who have served as a moral compass for society. Because of their superior character, these great leaders were able to keep the loyalty of their subjects without resorting to bribery, intimidation, or brute force. In short, their subjects followed them because they wanted to, not because they had to.

We live in a democracy, so none of our leaders can resort to force and intimidation, right? Wrong. You don't have to be a military strongman to coerce people. In fact, coercion and manipulation happen right here every day in the USA, especially at the local level. There are small-town mayors that I know of that will not hesitate to use their cronies to make life difficult for those that oppose them. Let's say, for instance, that the main supporter of a small-town mayor happens to be the owner of the local bank. You tick off the mayor, the mayor calls his friend at the bank, and suddenly you find out that you cannot get that mortgage loan that you need. After a few people get their mortgages denied, or their loans called in, the rest of the population learns quickly not to oppose the mayor.

Is there a difference, then, between this type of economic intimidation and a military dictator calling out the troops to intimidate the populace? I don't really think so. Both have the same short-term effect, that is, a submissive constituency. Both have similar long-term effects, that is a simmering bitterness waiting to manifest itself in a dramatic way.

In contrast, a truly great leader does not need coercion. Call it a cult of personality, if you will. These true leaders are leaders because they have the respect of those they lead. There is a notion that respect comes with the office. I beg to differ. Respect comes with the person holding the office.

I am not going to respect the mayor if he is stepping out on his wife. He may be the mayor, which is a job, the same as filling pot-holes is a job, but he will not get my respect because his actions are not worthy of respect. He is the representative of the city, of his constituents, the person who children want to emulate, and that kind of behavior is not the kind of behavior we want our children to emulate.

Take sex out of it. Let's say the mayor is a habitual liar. Do we want our children to emulate a habitual liar? Of course not.

Because they are held up as role models, the private lives of our leaders do matter. Period. So any argument by any political leader, be it the President or the local mayor, that what they do in their private lives is only their business, is categorically wrong. It isn't. If you don't want to be in the spotlight, stay out of public office.

For the sake of the country, the President should resign, as his behavior was not acceptable. So, too, should all of those morally bankrupt mayors.

Back to “The Fine Print” Index