A Fundamental Leadership Question (Part 1)

Morally Unfit?

In an interview with USA Today’s Susan Page and Kevin Johnson, James Comey, former Director of the FBI made a presumably serious accusation.  He called Donald Trump, “morally unfit to be president.” Comey illustrated his charge with multiple examples well known to anyone who has paid any attention to the news over the last two years.  

Just as there are some who deny the Earth is a sphere, there may be some who continue to believe all accounts of Trump misbehavior are lies or “fake news.”  But not many. There may also be some few sociopaths who hold no concept of “right” and “wrong.” But I suspect the vast majority of US citizens would at least somewhat agree that the current President is “morally challenged.”

So if I’m right, and the American people in overwhelming numbers agree with Comey that President Trump’s moral compass is broken, why is it that the latest polls indicate that around 40% of US adults approve of Trump’s job performance?  While that number does not reflect resounding support, it does seem to imply that a significant portion of the population does not believe leadership requires moral rectitude.

Does it Matter?

Based on these facts, the fundamental contemporary question in popular political philosophy is, “does it matter whether a leader has integrity?”  Does any past or present flaw make someone “morally unfit” to lead?

I’ve been intrigued that so many have disconnected ethical standards and leadership in recent days.  Even individuals of deep religious convictions seem inclined to separate the two. White Evangelicals have largely supported Trump despite obvious flaws.  As reporters and political analysts have looked into this strange partnership, they have often cited two key reasons.

First, Donald Trump supports the cultural agenda many conservative Christians have been dedicated to.  He is pushing back against those who would curtail religious freedom, against gay marriage, against changing concepts of gender, against abortion, and against judicial activism.  Many committed Christians would say Trump is being very effective in reversing troubling trends in the broader society.

Second, they would point out that all of us are flawed and sinful.  “There is none righteous, No not one.”  Therefore, we should give the president a “mulligan.”  He should not be held to high standards of morality when we are all flawed.  

Underlying Assumptions

The subtext of both of these assertions is that leadership is more about the agenda and the results of the leaders actions than it is about character.  Dr. Jerry Falwell, Jr., President of Liberty University, expressed this view very clearly in a pre-election interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.  “We’re not electing a pastor-in-chief.  We’re electing a commander-in-chief.” Seemingly, in his view, moral integrity in leaders is just not that important compared with business experience and a conservative agenda.

What we have here is two competing views of leadership.  One assumes that the moral character of the individual is essential for a leader to be effective.  This position underlies James Comey’s comments. The other viewpoint contends that character and moral principles are of limited relevance to leadership effectiveness.  Some might even add that integrity and values hinder the leader. I would say Dr. Falwell’s comments fall in this camp.

An Ancient Question

Though I call it a contemporary question, the question is by no means new.  Indeed it is quite ancient. In the 5th century BC, Plato highlighted the question through a friendly interchange between his older brother, Glaucon, and Socrates.  In the great work of ethics and political science, The Republic, the philosopher Thrasymachus (Book I), and in a more robust manner, Glaucon (Book II), challenge the notion that justice is superior to injustice.  Thrasymachus and Glaucon contend that only the weak who lack power desire justice.  However, if unconstrained, most everyone would choose as superior the immoral over the moral.  While Socrates paints a different picture of the value of justice and right throughout the remainder of the book, he never truly rebuts the substance of Glaucon’s argument.

For another famous example of the debate, fast forward to 16th century Italy.  Niccolo Machiavelli’s Prince details what he views as a realistic view of leadership and governance.  He contends that, unlike his contemporaries, he takes a clear-eyed view of history and describes what actually works and what doesn’t.  The conclusions are a bit unsettling to most. To Machiavelli, the effective leader must dispense with moral convictions (particularly religion).  However, in his view it is best to encourage religion and morality in one’s followers. While in general it may be important for the leader to “seem” moral to the masses, morality only makes the leader weak.  That said, the “fear of God” can be useful in the populace, since it may be a more powerful control on behavior than simply the fear of the prince.

Further illustrations of the antiquity of the question  could easily be piled up. Indeed, until the religious innovations (or better, revelations) made by the ancient Hebrews, most mythologies depicted the lords of the universe as morally neutral and capricious.  Morality was not a characteristic of the gods of ancient civilizations. Thus, their earthly counterparts, ancient kings throughout the world, generally shared those amoral characteristics.  Few expected leaders to be ethically upright. Leadership and ethics were just not all that connected.

A list from history of transformational leaders could easily be made which highlights names of men (and a few women) who had profound effects but who were untethered to morality.  Indeed, to the casual observer, when such individuals contested with more morally constrained leaders, the power struggle proved no-contest. Those not shackled by views of right and wrong almost always prevailed.  As Machiavelli contends, an ethic of love is no match against the power of fear.

To Be Continued

So what are we to conclude in this recurring debate?  Should we dispense with notions of ethical leadership and move to a modified moral position in which the aims and results are all that need be ethical?  Should the actions taken while pursuing those ends not to be evaluated morally? In the next blog, I’ll try to sort through these questions a bit more.