Is leadership, much less transcendent leadership, resting in peace (rip), or at the very least missing in action (mia)? Today’s leadership lacks the inspirational and ethical qualities of some of our nation’s past presidents. In honor of President’s Day, February 15th, this blog compares and contrasts three transcendent leaders from the past to today’s collective policymakers. Many of today’s dilemmas originally surfaced with these past leaders, the differences in how they were resolved is nothing short of amazing as well as disturbing.
The late Peter Drucker defined leadership as “doing the right thing instead of doing things right.” Do these “doing the right thing” leaders still exist? Transcendent leadership, in government, has been missing in action for some time. Currently, America is undergoing a paradigm shift in the form a communication breakdown. Both sides of Washington are oblivious to the ordinary citizen. It is apparent that, like Narcissus, policymakers are consumed with themselves. They could learn a few lessons about character and integrity from yesteryears transcendent leaders.
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Lincoln lived to prove that he could survive adversity and keep his power in check. When Abraham Lincoln became the president, it was during a period of a heated unraveling for the United States. In his book, Lincoln on Leadership, Donald Phillips described that period in time.
Some of the problems Lincoln had inherited from his predecessor James Buchanan were as follows: Seven states had seceded from the Union, Jefferson Davis was sworn in as the President of the Confederacy, and the US Senate had passed a bill to reduce military spending.
The US was embroiled in a full-blown crisis where its survival was in question. Lincoln, a political outsider, faced the challenge of holding the US together as a nation in a time of an in-house war on American soil. Yet, with all of this turmoil, Lincoln managed to maintain his open and approachable character. He would oftentimes allow ordinary citizens to discuss the issues of the day with him in the Oval office. In Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote that Lincoln regarded himself as “public property…he wanted people to have access to him.” It is absurd to think that American politicians would not welcome feedback from the people. Yet, rather than listen to what the country thinks, these politicos have chosen to detach themselves from their constituencies. In a decision that was clearly “the right thing to do,” Lincoln fired General Freemont for that very reason. Phillips quotes Lincoln as saying,
Freemont’s cardinal mistake is that he isolates himself, and allows nobody to see him; and by which he does not know what is going on in the very matter he is dealing with.
It stands to reason, that Mr. Lincoln would not have tolerated his policymakers referring to citizens as “astroturf,” “dining room tables” or imply that taxpayers were “we-we’d up!” Would Mr. Lincoln have allowed Congress to deliberate in closed-door sessions as they have done recently? On any barometer, these comments are inappropriate. It is a cheap shot tactic that is eerily reminiscent of the childhood bullying tactic of name calling. Is this the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” political strategy?
It appears that American leadership is not anywhere close to “doing the right thing.”
Part II continues next week. In the mean time dear reader, who do you think is a transcendent leader?