American Founding (1): Who Cares?

Why haven't there been more blockbuster movies about the American founding and Revolution? There were heroes, there were villains, and there was war. Yet moviegoers are likely to know more about Troy, the Spartan 300, and Roman gladiators than they do about George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and the American Revolution.

One reason the American founding lacks entertainment value is that it was more about what did not happen, than what did. As historian John Willson astutely observes, "most of what is really important about the American Founding lies in how a potentially harmful revolution was contained. It was not entirely averted, but it was contained and directed to the ends of limited government and the practice of liberties that had long existed in most American provinces." (There will be more on the proper interpretation of the American founding in the next essay.)

Perhaps because the American Revolution does not attract much attention in Hollywood or among the makers of video games, most young people are uninformed or misinformed about it. Surveys by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (http://www.isi.org/) show that few college freshmen grasp the significance of the American founding. Informal surveys that I administer to my own classes confirm this finding. Many college students are not particularly curious about the source of their freedom. They don't fully embrace what the American founding means for themselves or for humankind. It's sort of like gravity: just there.

Most of our youth, I've discovered, cannot say why George Washington was a rare leader worthy of our esteem. They cannot identify the most significant passages of the Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution. (For comic relief, see the clip of Barney Fife trying to recite the Preamble of the Constitution here.) There is no way they could explain why Thomas Jefferson called the Federalist Papers "the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written."

Few students have encountered the idea that King George III was arguably more of a rebel than George Washington. Beyond a few vague slogans about freedom and equality, most students are neither conversant with the ideas that animated the Founders, nor the principles by which they sought to govern, nor the succession of events that made independence possible, nor the incredible difficulties involved in founding the new republic, nor the tensions that were left unresolved in 1787 and bequeathed to later generations (e.g., constitutional interpretation, state vs. national sovereignty, and, tragically, the scandal of slavery).

Not only are most American students uninformed about the founding; they are misinformed as well. Most think the Constitution's framers were democrats; they are not aware that the delegates of 1787 loathed or feared direct rule by the many. Most students also fail to understand the founders' view of freedom, especially the notion that it must be ordered so that it does not devolve into licentious behavior or anarchy. Most students don't always appreciate that every right has a corresponding duty. And most are under the mistaken notion that there was everywhere a "wall of separation" between church and state from the get-go.

Do Americans not sufficiently value the founding as it actually happened? Has it been hijacked by ideologues? Does this help explain how uninformed and misinformed students are?

My aim in asking such a question is not to heap scorn on students. I do not blame our youth for what they have not been taught. I cannot hold them accountable for what they do not know when they reach my classroom, only for what they know when they leave it.

Truth is, the students starting my history classes probably know about as much as the leaders who represent them. It is our elected leaders who have no excuse when they are uninspired, uninformed, or misinformed about the founding. How ironic that Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party leader in Congress -- a political movement that consciously identifies with the American Founding -- claimed in a stump speech that New Hampshire was the state famous for Lexington, Concord, and the "shot heard round the world"! It was not her first gaffe regarding basic American history.

As a college professor, my charge is to turn students on to history. It is to help them discover the amazing story of the American founding -- their founding -- and to inspire them to learn about it for the rest of their lives.

Maybe along the way some of our nation's leaders will also be inspired to get our story right.

The Language of Leaders: Washington, Jefferson, Webster, Lincoln

This talk was originally delivered at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, on December 10, 1999. The idea that caught most historians' attention was that the Declaration of Independence was every bit as much a rhetorical document as a political document, meant to be read aloud to rally Americans to revolution.

Forging Politics, Rhetoric, and "the Permanent Things" into Messages that Inspire a Nation

... Russell Kirk challenged us to look beyond tomorrow's headlines and see the meaning of our work in the "Permanent Things." This term, suggested to Kirk by his friend T. S. Eliot, is fundamental to my remarks this afternoon. As Kirk explained it:

There is an order which holds all things in their places: ...it is made for us, and we are made for it. The thinking conservative, far from denying the existence of this eternal order, endeavors to ascertain its nature and to conform to that order, which is the source of the Permanent Things. [2]

The Permanent Things are identified, in other words, with truth, goodness, beauty, and all the transcendent norms that give life meaning. In due course I'll be saying more about the relationship between the Permanent Things and political discourse.

But first, permit me to meet head-on a perception that is frequently encountered--even in well-meaning people, not just cynics. It's the sense that the Permanent Things no longer stand tall in the political arena, but have been overmatched by brute Machiavellians. It's the feeling that truth, goodness, and beauty have been muscled out by their postmodern counterfeits--PR, celebrity, and glitz. It's the apprehension that pollsters and focus groups are no longer handmaids but masters of policy. People actually come up to me and ask: How can you stand working in government? Is there any honor left in politics?

The honor is to be found wherever there are men and women who champion the Permanent Things.

Conservatives in the Western tradition like to say, after Richard Weaver, that ideas have consequences. But before there can be ideas, there must be words. It is on the wings of words that ideas are born. It is on the strength of words that ideas either take flight or fall flat. That is why words, language, and rhetoric are so important in a constitutional republic where the people are sovereign and so must sort out how they shall live. As Kirk explained, "we cannot dissociate political principles and the methods of persuasion.... Some genuine connection subsists between the order of rhetoric and the order of society; false phrases open the way for false measures."[3]

What Kirk is saying, in essence, is that behind every abuse of language, there's potentially an abuse of power, and behind every abuse of power, there's probably an abuse of language.

Because our republic has such a rich history, I'd like to take a long view this afternoon and discuss a few key moments in America's past, when a gifted leader forged politics, rhetoric, and the Permanent Things into a powerful unity. The illustrations are, I believe, sufficiently vivid to suggest numerous applications today.

Truth

Let's begin by looking at an American leader whose best speeches are considered literary masterpieces, and that is Abraham Lincoln. He knew one of the greatest sources of persuasion--the radical idea that people are moved by truth. Lincoln wove the truth and other Permanent Things into his speeches as few other leaders have. One of his favorite ways to argue for the truth was by using logic. He was especially masterful at using the law of the excluded middle. He no doubt perfected his use of the excluded middle in the courtroom, where unambiguous guilt or innocence had to be established before a defendant could be judged. But what I want to look at is how he used the excluded middle in his bid for a U.S. Senate seat in 1858. Lincoln's argument was that if the United States was born in freedom, if it defined itself in terms of freedom, if its destiny was freedom's very destiny, then it inevitably followed that--here come the famous words--"A house divided against itself cannot stand.... This government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.... It will become all one thing, or all the other."[4]

Lincoln explained why this must be so, with a series of powerful rhetorical questions and imagery: "When ... you have succeeded in dehumanizing the Negro [sic]; when you have put him down and made it impossible for him to be but as the beasts of the field; when you have extinguished his soul in this world and placed him where the ray of hope is blown out as in the darkness of the damned," what is the effect on a freedom-loving people?

Furthermore, Lincoln asked:

What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, our army and our navy.... Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. [5]

There's an interesting story behind the "house divided" line, which, as you know, is an allusion from the Bible.[6] Lincoln had actually tried the line out in 1856, two years before the contest with [Stephen A.] Douglas, but had been severely criticized. Advisers said he had put the issue of union too bluntly, and they actually got him to agree never to say it again. But two years later, faced with a formidable opponent in Douglas, he just could not resist. He first rehearsed the House Divided speech before an audience of one, his partner William Herndon, who liked most of it, but questioned whether the "house divided" passage was politic. Lincoln responded: "I would rather be defeated with this expression in my speech, and uphold it and discuss it before the people, than be victorious without it."[7] How many politicians can you imagine talking like that today?

Next, Lincoln tried the speech out on a dozen of his closest supporters and asked what they thought. All but one condemned the "house divided" line, one going so far as to call it a "damned fool utterance."[8]

Lincoln this time stood resolutely in disagreement with his advisers. He said the people needed to hear the stark choice before them--in other words, the law of the excluded middle. "The time has come when these sentiments should be uttered; and if it is decreed that I should go down because of this speech, then let me go down linked to the truth--let me die in the advocacy of what is just and right." As one of Lincoln's biographers noted, this was "Rather a memorable pronouncement of a candidate to his committee"--especially on the eve of the nominating convention. [9]

Now, a minute ago I said that people respond to the truth. And you are thinking, "Yeah, and Lincoln lost to Douglas." Technically, that's true. What is forgotten nowadays is that Lincoln actually won a majority of the popular vote in 1858. This, despite running against a very well-liked, charming candidate. It was a majority of the new Illinois legislature that sent Douglas back to the U.S. Senate.

And yet, in the long run, who lost to whom?

The "house divided" allusion would go on to win the heart of the Republican Party, then only four years old, and after Lincoln's death, it would win the heart of the American people. The fact that these words are studied and memorized to this day shows that human beings do indeed respond to truth.

Goodness

Let's now turn to another American leader whose speeches merit the accolades given to literature, and that's Daniel Webster. Like Lincoln, the Massachusetts Senator knew all the sources of persuasion. But for him the essential thing was that people are moved by goodness--another radical idea. Psychological research confirms scientifically what Webster knew intuitively, that our brain is wired to enjoy listening to a bard recount the great and heroic deeds of others. That's why historical narrative is such a satisfying way to communicate.

A student of Webster's oratory writes that "True eloquence is not an ordinary occurrence; it demands the right person, the right subject, and the right occasion--but when it breaks out it is godlike."[10] That was precisely the effect the 38-year-old Webster had on Americans with a speech that captured the nation's imagination. The occasion was the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the landing of the Pilgrims. The date was December 22, 1820, and the site was the First Church in Plymouth, Massachusetts. It's difficult to imagine a more historic occasion or more historic site for Americans in the new republic. To a packed audience that included former President John Adams, Webster began:

We have come to this Rock, to record here our homage to our Pilgrim Fathers; our sympathy in their sufferings; our gratitude for their labors; our admiration of their virtues; our veneration for their piety; and our attachments to those principles of civil and religious liberty, which they encountered the dangers of the ocean, the storms of heaven, the violence of savages, disease, exile, and famine....

Webster proceeded to build up the speech with powerful images of the Pilgrims' first years. The audience was visibly moved. A young Harvard professor made a remarkable confession after leaving the church. "I was never so excited by public speaking before in my life," he said. "Three or four times I thought my temples would burst with the pulse of blood.... When I came out, I was almost afraid to stand near him. It seemed to me he was like the mount that might not be touched and that burned with fire. I was beside myself and am so still."[11]

John Adams was not given to being easily impressed by thirty-somethings. Yet even he was so moved by Webster that he urged Americans to read the address "every year forever and ever."[12]

The key to understanding the power of this speech is in part Webster's charisma; he was an extremely impressive individual to be around. But it is also the stories he told, stories of good men and women whose example showed what Americans were made of. We are reading the stories still.

Beauty

Let's now turn to the Founder responsible for the most famous political statement in American history, and that's Thomas Jefferson, the lead author of the Declaration of Independence. If Lincoln was the rhetorical master of truth, and Webster the rhetorical master of goodness, then our nation's third president could claim rhetorical mastery of another source of persuasion--beauty. He knew that people are moved by beauty.

In rhetorical terms, beauty involves using apt words effectively arranged. The task, as Richard Weaver put it, is to use the gift of imagination "to make words even in prose take on wings."[13]

In the English language, there are many ways to achieve beauty in the spoken word--through parallelism, alliteration, simile, metaphor, and so forth. For our present purposes, I want to focus on Jefferson's use of parallelism. In American political discourse, arguably the greatest example of the repeated beginning (what is technically called "anaphora") occurred at the beginning of our nation, in the Declaration.

Now, I'm going to say two things that surprise most people. First, to the Continental Congress that adopted the Declaration, it was not the beginning that was regarded as most important. ("When in the course of human events.... We hold these truths to be self-evident....") I know it's heretical to say nowadays, but political philosophy was not the main thing on the minds of the signers; that's our modern reading of it. To the delegates assembled in Congress, it was rather the middle of the document that was most important. That's the part which justified independence by listing the myriad of ways in which the king had violated their ancient rights as Englishmen.[14] It's the most conservative part of the Declaration, and it consists of 18 well-crafted statements, each attacking George III, and each beginning with the words, "He has...." To cite a few examples:

"He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither swarms of new Officers, to harass our People, and eat out their Substance."

"He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People."

"He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection, and waging War against us."

Without a doubt, the parallelism is one of the most striking rhetorical features of the document. Which leads to the second thing that surprises people, which is that the Declaration was written to be read aloud. It's as much a part of our oral as our written culture. To prove this, I'd draw your attention to the formatting in Jefferson's original draft. It is preserved in the Library of Congress. If you ever have the opportunity to see the original or a facsimile, look at how he wrote out the eighteen "He has" statements. They don't all run together in a single paragraph. Rather, they are broken out in clauses, each having the same left-margin and indent pattern. This makes them visually as well as rhetorically parallel. Not accidentally, the first printing of the document was typographically true to Jefferson's layout.

After examining the original draft, what strikes me as a speechwriter is this: the left-margin and indent pattern is precisely the format I've long used in Governor Engler's texts. I give each sentence its own paragraph, and I line up parallelisms for ease in reading aloud. The Declaration looks to me like the scripted text of a speech.

This thesis is further buttressed when you recall how news spread in the eighteenth century. It was not just by reading newspapers. It was not just by posting documents for passersby. It was also by reading aloud to people gathered in the town squares. It was a form of entertainment. And sure enough, during that hot summer of 1776, the Declaration was proclaimed--read as a speech--in hundreds of town squares up and down the 13 states. The Pennsylvania Gazette reported that when it was read aloud in New York, the crowd became so excited that they pulled down a statue of George III, recovered the lead, and turned it into bullets!* When the Declaration was read aloud in Boston on July 19, Abigail Adams observed in a letter to her husband that the crowd grew quite excited when the reader went through the series of charges against George III. As Jefferson had intended, the parallelism created an irresistible drumbeat, inspiring resolve to fight the War of Independence to the finish.

Love

So where does this bring us, this awareness that such Permanent Things as truth, goodness, and beauty can powerfully shape public discourse, even to the point of changing the course of human events? That may sound as if I am about to launch into my peroration--but not quite yet. I beg your forbearance. For there is one source of persuasion that I've yet to mention but that crowns all the others--and that is love. Every great rhetorician knows that people are moved--moved deeply, inevitably, and finally--by love.

To illustrate I wish to turn to the man, the 200th anniversary of whose passing we shall be celebrating within the week, and that is George Washington. We don't usually think of Washington this way, but the historical record bears out that the father of our country was a master rhetorician when it came to expressing love to, and eliciting love from, an audience.

The most famous example of this is the speech he delivered at Newburgh, New York, on the Ides of March in 1783. This was literally the speech that kept his army from marching against Congress. (Which shows you how little things change; people were even mad at Congress in those days.) The officers were understandably upset that Congress had not given them back pay for their many years of service to their country. They had willingly left their families and farms to aid the cause of freedom, and they simply wanted to be able to pay off their debts. As frustration mounted, someone high up the chain of command circulated a memo through the officer corps, urging insurrection. The malcontents planned a secret meeting.

Washington caught wind of the caucus and intervened swiftly. He denounced the treasonous plot and postponed the gathering by three days. This gave him critically needed time to think about how to give perhaps the most important speech of his life.

Now Washington, as you know, was crafty. He kept his own counsel and didn't alert the officers that he would be confronting them personally. So when they met on the Ides of March, they wondered whether their commander in chief would exert his authority through a surrogate. If this is what they assumed, they miscalculated badly. Remember, Washington had a keen sense of drama. All his adult life he had been a devotee of the theater.

Imagine the officers' surprise when, after the start of their meeting, their commander strode in and made straight for the lectern. There was a tense silence. The General spoke from a prepared text for approximately five minutes. The remarks were built around a series of parallel constructions that emphasized the men's common sacrifice. They had become like family, and he only wanted what was just and right for them. But they must not be imprudent or disloyal, not after having gone through so much together, and not when so much was at stake. The men were moved by his appeals--in fact, it was the best speech they had ever heard him deliver.

But all this, powerful as it was, was a prelude contrived to set the stage for the final act. After Washington finished his prepared remarks, he removed a letter from his coat pocket that he said he wished to read aloud. He began to read, then all of a sudden fell silent. Not a word came from his mouth as he fumbled awkwardly with the letter. Then he pulled a new pair of eyeglasses out of his pocket and remarked, "Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown gray in your service and now find myself growing blind."

The high drama had its intended impact. The men stood in stunned silence. The gesture and words did more than any armed force could have to dissolve the insurrection, for it dissolved the rebellion in their hearts. As one officer later recorded, Washington's action was so disarming that it brought tears to the eyes of every man present. They suddenly felt inexpressible shame mixed with a renewed love for their leader. He had sacrificed more than anyone, yet never complained. They pledged their abiding support to Washington and to the new republic.

A narrow escape for the new nation, this, and it was pulled off by love--the love that Washington expressed for his men, and the love that they returned to him.[15]

Mirror or Lamp?

Truth, goodness, beauty, love--these are the Permanent Things, the wellsprings of persuasion that are never out of season. The good rhetorician instinctively knows that they move people more deeply than anything else.

But these days there are two competing schools of thought about speechwriting, especially as it applies to political discourse. One school of thought says that a speech should hold a mirror up to the public. It should reflect the fashions of the day. You study focus groups and polling data to get a sense for who's up and who's down, who's in and who's out. The speechwriter, merely one "consultant" among many, is typically brought in at the end of the process. He is a clever fellow, a merchant of sophistry who knows how to package flattery for mass consumption.

Another school of thought says that a speech should be more than a mirror; it should be a lamp lighting the way for the better angels of our nature. It understands that the act of speaking is one of the most ethical things we do, and thus that "language is sermonic," as Richard Weaver so memorably put it. It apprehends that rhetoric, at its best, seeks union with the Permanent Things. "The rhetorician," observes Weaver, "is a preacher to us, noble if he tries to direct our passion toward noble ends and base if he uses our passion to confuse and degrade us."[16] At the very least, such a rhetoric should issue some challenge to be stronger, truer, and worthier of our blessings. It should remind us to keep the roots of our American order embedded in the Permanent Things.

There's no doubt in my mind which school of thought orators like Washington, Jefferson, Webster, and Lincoln subscribed to. As in much else, we would do well to follow in their footsteps.

References:

[2]Russell Kirk, Prospects for Conservatives, revised ed. (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1989), pp. 36-37. Examination of earlier editions reveals that Kirk originally wrote the statement in a slightly differently form. See, for example, Russell Kirk, A Program for Conservatives, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1962), p. 50.

[3]Russell Kirk, "Rhetoricians and Politicians," Kenyon Review, Fall 1964, p. 768.

[4]Abraham Lincoln, speech to Republican State Convention, Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858.

[5]Abraham Lincoln, speech, Edwardsville, Illinois, September 11, 1858.

[6]Mark 3:25.

[7]Quoted in Lord Charnworth, Abraham Lincoln: A Biography, Introduction by Peter W. Schramm (Lanham, Md: Madison Books, 1996; originally published 1916), p. 110.

[8]Charnworth, Lincoln, p. 110.

[9]Charnworth, Lincoln, pp. 110-111.

[10]Irving H. Bartlett, "Daniel Webster: The Orator and Writer," in Daniel Webster: The Completest Man, edited by Kenneth E. Shewmaker, foreword by William H. Rehnquist (Hanover, N.H.: Dartmouth College/University Press of New England, 1990), p. 80.

[11]George Ticknor quoted in George Ticknor Curtis, Life of Daniel Webster, vol. 1 (New York, 1870), p. 194. See also Bartlett, "Daniel Webster," p. 83.

[12]Adams quoted in Bartlett, "Daniel Webster," p. 83.

[13]Richard M. Weaver, "Language Is Sermonic," Language Is Sermonic: Richard M. Weaver on the Nature of Rhetoric, ed. Richard J. Johannesen, Rennard Strickland, and Ralph T. Eubanks (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970), p. 202.

[14]To say that the conservative heart of the Declaration was the most important part to the Founders is hardly an unorthodox historical interpretation. It has even made its way into common reference works. See, for example, Jack P. Greene, "Declaration of Independence, United States," in Encyclopedia Americana, 1986 ed., vol. 8, p. 592.

[15]Virtually every competent biography of Washington recounts this pivotal event. One of the most detailed accounts, based on a primary source, is found in Josiah Quincy, Memoir of Major Samuel Shaw, p. 104. See also Washington Irving, George Washington: A Biography, ed. Charles Neider (New York: Da Capo Press, 1994), pp. 603-607, which draws from Shaw's observations; and Richard Norton Smith, Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), which takes a less idolizing view of Washington's thespian talents.

[16]Weaver, "Language Is Sermonic," p. 201.

Additional source:

*For the July 17, 1776, story in the Pennsylvania Gazette about the statue of George III being turned into bullets after the Declaration was read, see Peter C. Mancall, Origins and Ideologies of the American Revolution, vol. 3 (Chantilly, VA: Teaching Company, 2006), p. 28.

Leadership essentials

Definitions:

"Leadership is the capacity and the will to rally men and women in a common purpose." ~Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery

Leaders must have the ability to make tough decisions. They must have the character to inspire confidence.

Following are some thoughts and values that inform our leadership work at the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies:

The Republic Needs Leaders

When we speak of national security problems, economic problems, political problems, energy problems, environmental problems, and social problems, we are ultimately confronting leadership problems. To grapple effectively and ethically with the plethora of problems we face, we must take the utmost care to educate emerging leaders in social skills, the process within which they work, risk assessment, and a humane understanding of the human condition.


Leaders and Geese

Leaders can learn a little something from observing geese:
- A flock of geese know their community; they know who's in the flock.
- When the flock takes off and align in their V formation, all the geese are flying in the same direction.
- In a well-coordinated V they are helping each other by creating an updraft, each for the goose behind him. They can fly 70 percent farther if they help each other than if they fly isolated.
- The leader knows he doesn't have to do it alone. He is happy to share the lead. When he gets tired, he falls behind and lets the goose behind him take the lead.
- The honking comes from the back of the flock to encourage the ones with the most resistance out front.
- When a goose in flight falters and must land, the others land and surround him for protection, and stay with him until he can fly again or dies.


Leadership Traits (from Paul Hillegonds)

It's important to study the best leaders and discover what traits many of them have in common. That's what we do at the Hauenstein Center. So we invited Paul Hilligonds to speak to our leadership fellows. Paul has held major leadership positions in all three major sectors -- for-profit, non-profit, and public. He shared his rich experience and reflections with leadership fellows on September 26, 2011, in Lansing.

1. Leaders know that leadership depends on relationships. Relationships depend on trust, and trust arises out of integrity. Integrity is adherence to core values. So leaders protect their integrity, first and foremost. (For once integrity is lost, it is difficult if not impossible to recover.) It's the most important thing to know about the individuals we regard as good leaders: They have integrity, which gives rise to trust, which is the foundation of good relationships, which is the basis for collective action.
2. Leaders are not insecure but have a healthy self-esteem and are comfortable in their own skin -- so healthy that they know when to listen and when to follow. They know when to mentor and when to be mentored.
3. Leaders know themselves -- especially their weaknesses -- so surround themselves with diverse, talented people who can complement their skills and tell them not necessarily what they want to hear, but what they need to hear.
4. Leaders have a strong sense of purpose. They know why they are leading. They are not just managing the status quo, but have a vision of where to go.
5. Servant leaders are motivated to make an impact. They are results oriented. They also respect that process which gets results. Servant leaders want to achieve results that better a situation, solve a problem, make a community stronger, and bring about the greater good.
6. Leaders have the courage and decisiveness to be decision-makers. They often know the outcome they want out of a meeting or process. But they know that everyone else does, too. Diverse people have their own ideas about the way things should be. Leaders understand that they are not just "bosses." Leadership is about piloting and steering, not dictating or ordering (unless of course there is a safety emergency). In a democracy, the process to reach a decision usually involves flexibility, adaptation, compromise, cooperation. During the process, good leaders work hard to steer diverse people toward a consensus. Instinctive problem solvers, they are determined to find common ground with those with whom they disagree. This means that they are good negotiators who value two-way communication, listen well, and winnow options well. Again, they prefer steering people toward consensus than commanding them like pawns. They steer a great team toward implementing the consensus.
7. Leaders are risk-takers. They are not content just to manage the status quo. They will even risk sharing credit and power when it's the right thing to do.
8. To make the tough decisions -- the 51-49 decisions -- leaders grapple with the age-old quandary of whether to follow their conscience or be guided by the will of the people they represent. In either case, it comes back to relationships: if leaders try to know their constituents, they will better understand and be better understood when the time comes to make a difficult decision.
9. Leaders know they did not create their community and its institutions out of whole cloth, but stand on the shoulders of others. They see themselves as stewards of their institution and stewards of their community.
10. What if your place or position in an organization is the minority one? In today's polarized climate, what is the role of a community steward? You are obligated to do more than "just say no." You are obligated to give a constructive alternative because you recognize a higher calling to the community. To be effective, you have to go back to fundamentals like the first one mentioned -- relationships. Get to know the people who oppose you; have dinner together; understand their family heritage and experience and concerns. That human foundation will go far both when it comes time to make a difficult decision, and when you are trying to get an audience for your "voice in the wilderness."

Death, Happiness, and Leadership

The death of Steve Jobs has brought to light his Socratic side, the conviction that a good life is about preparing for a good death. (See The Apology, Crito, and Phaedo.)

From Socrates to Steve Jobs, the art of living comes down to this: living as though you will soon die. With the urgency to get things right, you will simplify. You will have increasingly peaceful, positive relations with fellow human beings. You will be a better listener and friend. (You will finally succeed in living the Golden Rule.) You will quit trying to control people and situations you cannot. (You will finally succeed in living the Serenity Prayer.) You will not take another's foul mood so personally. (You will finally be more adept at letting go of perceived injuries.) Since you want to leave a positive legacy, you will challenge yourself to make people feel that their life is better because of their encounters with you. No backbiting, no negativity, no whining, no complaining: just good words about people, about our stories, about the work we do, about the opportunities to grow amid struggle, and about our vision for -- and actions consistent with -- a better life for all whose lives we are privileged to touch. Ironically, the approach of death can focus us and make us happier.

Considering how death focuses the mind, I want you to undertake a little thought experiment. Try to imagine how this notion of the art of living impinges on the art of leadership. If you were to ask leaders what they'd do if told they had only five months to live, they no doubt would focus on their relationships -- with children, spouse, family, and close friends -- exactly what Steve Jobs did. Now, if you were to ask leaders what they would do if told they had only five years to live, they would still tend to the primary relationships in their life, but they would also try to contribute something that they would be proud to leave behind -- some expression of the best of their gifts. This larger horizon would concentrate their efforts on legacy, on how they'd want to be remembered, and they no doubt would do something great.

Since none of us knows when we'll die, what's stopping you from giving the best of your gifts to humankind now? You just may become a happier human being and leader if you live with more urgency to get your relationships and work right.

The Education of Leaders: Social Sciences and Humanities

Education engenders understanding and compassion. We see what happens where education is lacking. In the absence of understanding and compassion, frustrated people resort to extremism, force, violence, terror, and war. ~Dr. Jonathan White

The education of leaders often draws on the social sciences -- economics, the law, political science, sociology, etc. The education of leaders should also include deep engagement with the humanities -- history, literature, philosophy, etc. The social sciences are useful because they explain and/or predict patterns of behavior in large populations of human beings. The humanities help us remain alive to the unique and unpredictable turn in human events; help us not be surprised by the unexpected ways an individual will choose to think and act; pull us into the minds and experiences of other individuals and cultures. Leaders need to appreciate both the social sciences and the humanities, and welcome thinkers from each perspective to the table. Here's why:

1. Since World War II, the U.S. has been the world's greatest superpower. Yet in late 1989, not one leader foresaw the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Empire -- not one -- despite the fact that our nation employed thousands of experts in the social sciences and spent $30 billion annually in universities, government intelligence agencies, think tanks, and exchange programs to observe and understand Eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R.
2. Since World War II, the U.S. has been the world's dominant economy. Yet in late 2007, hardly any leaders fully grasped that the global real estate bubble was about to drive the U.S. and other Western nations over a cliff. The Great Recession would wreck havoc on the middle class, but where were the experts who took a leadership role and warned investment bankers and policy makers to forswear toxic mortgages and asset bundling?
3. After World War II, our economy and military needed Middle Eastern allies and oil. Yet in late 1979, hardly any American experts trained in the social sciences saw the coming eruption of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Hardly any experts foresaw and told us how radical the reassertion of Islam would change our world for decades to come.

The same with other world-historic events -- 9/11, Tiananmen Square, the first OPEC embargo -- all of which left the majority of experts and leaders slack-jawed. Let me put it another way. The biggest events of recent decades were anticipated neither by the experts nor by our leaders. Should a greater variety of perspectives be at the table when major decisions are being weighed?

Education in the U.S. has occasionally failed to prepare experts, leaders, and citizens to anticipate tectonic changes that affect our security, economy, and way of life. What to do? Following Emmanuel Wallerstein (Unthinking Social Science) and W. Robert Connor ("Why Were We Surprised?"), I would offer that leadership education has to step back from its overweening reliance on the social sciences. This is not an argument to throw out the social sciences, just to recognize their limitations. Balancing training in the social sciences with deep exposure to the humanities -- history, literature, philosophy, myth, and the arts -- would give emerging leaders a truly comprehensive outlook onto the world. The humanities and social sciences both are needed to prepare ethical, effective leaders.

Here is another way of saying it. Leaders are expected to make decisions that will bring about a better future. Since nobody knows the future, it's all guesswork. Why are some guesses better than others? Good guesses about the future are based on experience, training, sound intuition, and good counsel. Let's look briefly at this last element, good counsel. When big decisions are being weighed, the secure leader should welcome two kinds of minds to the table. Each compensates for the limits of the other. (1) The statistical mind is the assertion of the "left brain" that's been educated in the social sciences. It knows how to crunch numbers, interpret bell curves, and predict human behavior in situations where mathematical formulas have a proven track record. This approach grows out of Adolphe Quetelet's pioneering work in probability and statistics, and Auguste Comte's conviction that scientific knowledge of society is possible -- it's tantamount to "social physics" -- and that decision making is a methodical exercise using the correct formulas. (2) The humanistic mind is the assertion of the "right brain" that's been educated in the humanities. It is alert to possibilities that might be overlooked by training in the social sciences. This approach grows out of Jacob Burckhardt's conviction that observers who are deeply read in history, literature, myth, and philosophy can sniff out the unpredictable element in human affairs. Learning from the past, they can sense the deep, persistent crises that might arise when historical processes are interrupted or accelerated. They are alive to the power of emotions, loyalty, and love (all four kinds) in human action. At its most powerful, the humanistic mind may forecast what will happen and foresee the moral consequences. It is what Thucydides calls pronoia in his great account of the Peloponnesian War.

Here is the point: When it comes to advisers, the secure leader embraces "both-and," not "either-or." Both advisory styles are at the table. For the humanities shove us out of our comfort zone into the mystery, variety, and unpredictability of the human condition -- the exact opposite of what social science tries to do in tracing the patterns, consistency, and predictability of human behavior. To understand the human condition in all its richness, the social sciences and humanities both are needed because they point us in opposite directions -- the one, toward the patterns and predictable behavior in human populations; the other, toward the mystery and unpredictability of individual wills.

As part of their education, emerging leaders/apprentice leaders should be well exposed to both the statistical mind and the humanistic mind. They should know how to form a team of advisers who come from the social sciences and humanities. They should grapple with case studies in which the statistical mind and humanistic mind complemented and/or clashed with one another. For example, how did these two advisory styles help or hurt JFK as he arrived at a decision during the Cuban missile crisis? [For an appreciation of the humanities in leadership education, see W. R. Connor, "Why Were We Surprised?" American Scholar (2001): 175-84.]

My colleague in the economics department at Grand Valley State University, Prof. Greg Dimkof, is refreshingly humble about the predictive powers of his discipline. He claims that economists do not predict very well because meteorologists cannot predict long-range weather very well. The economy is dependent on a wild card, weather, and weather impacts energy costs, crops, investors, catastrophes, lost productivity, and much else that goes into the GDP calculus.

On the other hand, I appreciate another colleague, Prof. Jon White, who profiles terrorists and knows how to use modeling to predict if they will attack. He said a half-dozen things usually come together to create an extremist terrorist who will attack American citizens and property. These individuals (1) are alienated from our society, (2) find others who are alienated from society, (3) get religion even if it's a twisted interpretation of Islam, (4) fall under the spell of a religious leader who has a beef with the status quo, (5) are able to get weapons, and (6) have the means to travel to their target. That's social science put to work -- thankfully -- for our security.

A liberal education – a liberating education – is foundational to leadership. If you learn to see the world through the eyes of others – if you really listen to others and try to understand their experiences and viewpoint – people will be more inclined to give you a hearing. If you have earned such a platform with others, you can bring diverse people together to pursue a common cause. You can also communicate better – an essential skill in a pluralistic culture. So, if you have studied economics, you can see the world as an economist sees it. If sociology, as a sociologist sees it. If politics, as a political scientist sees it. If religion, as a theologian sees it, etc. A liberal education imparts a broad, humane outlook.

The American Sea Change

Human nature is everywhere and always constant. One of the constants is that there will always be followers and leaders. Another is that followers will always respond better to leaders who consistently show strength of character. But leadership traits and styles are sensitive to threshold events in history. Consider the creation of the United States, the first large republic in the modern era. Our nation was established in a world of hostile monarchs. The new republic fundamentally changed the idea and practice of leadership. In most cultures prior to 1776, men and women became leaders through conquest or dynastic succession. The U.S. gave rise to leadership that wasn’t grounded in conquest or dynasties, but in “the consent of the governed” (Locke and Jefferson). One important trait leaders need to connect with the governed is trust. Because it is so necessary to compromise in a constitutional republic, leaders must have integrity. When they enter negotiations and make agreements, there must be no betrayal. Another important trait is empathy. Developing a leader’s capacity to feel empathy for others – to really listen to others and try to understand their experiences and viewpoint – is central to leadership in a democratic polity. This empathy is developed in part through our reflection on our own and others' suffering, and in part through a liberal education – i.e., through thoughtful engagement with literature, biography, history, psychology, and other “liberating” disciplines.

Leaders who can be trusted, leaders who have integrity, leaders who feel empathy -- these traits have been cultivated by the American way of governance. They have been written into our nation's unwritten constitution. Cultivating these leadership traits has become as much a part of our unwritten constitution as political parties (to channel our differences), the fourth estate (to act as a watchdog for citizens), and President George Washington's precedents (to guide future presidents). There are many examples of trust, integrity, and empathy in the public lives of our dominant Founders -- Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison.

What Leaders Need

Leaders in a democracy must be effective and ethical.

Trust, according to Gerald R. Ford, is the most important trait an American leader needs to possess. In line with this thought, Ford always showed respect to others. He regarded people who disagreed with him as opponents, not enemies.

The four most important things leaders need (adapted from Rufus Fears): Leaders need (1) a moral compass to maintain integrity in their personal relations, (2) firm political principles to guide their public policies, (3) the possession of emotional intelligence, good interpersonal relations, and communication skills to bring people together in a consensus, and (4) vision or foresight -- pronoia in Thucydides – to anticipate danger, guide the priorities when a leader sets the agenda, and answer the question: What should stay the same, and what should change, as we respond to a challenge / better our condition / take ourselves to the Promised Land?

To these four characteristics, an Aristotelian like Alasdair MacIntyre would add (5) the virtue of prudence, which is good judgment wedded to right action. Presidential historian Robert Dallek would add (6) luck since statesmen enjoy enough good luck to win the battles they must. Agreeing with all that has come before, I would add (7) the inner strength, psychological resilience, and courage to fight another day. For elaboration on this last point, see my essay, "Democracy's Greatest Leaders -- Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill."

Sea Change in Leadership

The rise of the United States brought about a sea change in leadership. Prior to the American founding, there were relatively few leaders in proportion to the population of any given nation. Most of the Old World's leaders ruled through conquest or dynastic succession. The rise of the U.S. increased the absolute and relative number of leaders in the West as well as changed the rules of the game. "We the People" were no longer subjects of a king, but citizens of a constitutional republic who enjoyed inherent rights, as well as the opportunity to pursue happiness as we wished. Most American leaders were not "to the manor born" but worked their way "from the bottom up." So prepare to be surprised by the people around you: Today's followers may well be tomorrow's leaders.

The frontier played a special role in developing American leadership. It called forth women and men who had to meet innumerable challenges before local, state, or national government could extend its effective reach, even for day-to-day defense. In this challenging new environment, self reliance, the cultivation of freedom under the rule of law, and a culture of democratization took root. These values have had a profound impact on who leads whom, when, and how, in America.

The three great sectors of American public life have reinforced this sea change in leadership. In the political arena, candidates standing for election must learn consensus-building skills, the art of compromise, accommodation, flexibility, and respect for rules of the game. If you lose the debate or the vote, you accept the outcome and live to fight another day. In the marketplace, the providers of goods and services have to be sensitive to people's needs and wants, offering what is socially needed and desirable -- or risk financial failure. In civil society, there are all kinds of opportunities for people to volunteer and take a lead improving the lives of others. All three of these sectors -- political, economic, and voluntary -- reinforce one another. Each sector requires ethical, effective leaders. The effect has been to dramatically increase the number of leadership opportunities in the U.S., as well as to democratize and decentralize leadership.

In America, the tyrannical type does not do well in the public square -- either in the political arena, marketplace, or civil society. Throughout our history, people have had to conceal and channel their libido dominandi. In effect they have to come across as ruling less and leading more. It means that a lot of what a leader has to do is genuinely connect with others. True leaders -- the Real Deal -- must make a better impression than the host of pretenders out there. They have to win others over in an authentic way. A leader wins others over through good people skills, integrity, hard work, smart presentation, and mastery of the practical arts of leading.

A Democratic Culture of Leadership

The most unlikely people with the most debilitating flaws and in the most unlikely circumstances have risen to leadership positions, so…. So look around with renewed respect for the people you know. The person who is small and unassuming (like Gandhi) might lead a multitude; the person who has a speech impediment (like Moses) may start the greatest liberation movement in human history; the teenage girl (like Joan of Arc), although inhabiting a "man’s world," might lead an army against a foreign enemy; the person who grows up in isolated log cabins and receives hardly any schooling (like Abraham Lincoln), may with courage and eloquence lead the United States to rediscover its destiny. Look around you and be prepared to follow….

Look also into yourself – and be prepared to lead. You never know when you will be called upon to lead. That’s why we offer leadership education to young people at the Cook Leadership Academy.

Because the U.S. is a large, free nation with great opportunities in the three major sectors – business, government, and non-profit – our nation offers people more opportunities to lead than any other, ever. So: there is no excuse. If you see a problem that needs to be addressed, help a leader or be the leader who wrestles the challenge to the ground.

The Center Must Hold

A good double entendre to describe what we believe: At the Hauenstein Center, we believe that the center must hold. We balance conservation and innovation. (Thanks for this double entendre, Adam Bradway.)

For the better part of their history, Americans have lived successfully with the tension between the party of innovation (based on Voltaire and Hamilton) and the party of conservation (based on Burke and John Adams). We believe that the tension between innovation and conservation is productive of a justly ordered, free society. We believe that the extremes – whether on the left flank of innovation or the right flank of conservation – lead to divisive ideologies that should not prevail in the public square. When it comes to American politics, we believe that the center must hold. Indeed, the genius of American politics has been to eschew ideologies of every stripe. Our Cook Leadership Academy prepares students to work with both sides of the aisle in an effort to seek solutions.

The political center is not like vanilla, any more than the middle of a chess board is like vanilla. The center should not be defined either by mere pragmatism or by preoccupation with democratic procedure. In reality, the political center is the arena where contrasting ideas are thrown into the spotlight and clash most brilliantly. It's where the fight is most strenuous. It requires great discipline to fight in the center of the arena. Politically it is where the party of innovation and the party of conservation must channel their differences in constructive ways (mostly through the parties themselves, an essential element in America’s unwritten constitution; and through the filter of our fourth estate, the journalists). The lively contests in the center are where we discover our common ground as Americans. Thus good leaders know that the center must hold.

The opposite of the center is tyranny. No tyrant can tolerate the middle ground where debate is most vigorous. So conserving a lively center preserves liberty.

- We do not just focus on political leadership at the Cook Leadership Academy. We are committed to raising up a community of ethical, effective leaders who are familiar with the ecology of all three sectors – business, government, and non-profit. The same leadership skills are needed in each of these sectors.

- Managers are problem solvers; leaders are problem seekers. In the former case, the problem has already appeared, so it’s too late to do anything but manage the suffering it is causing and try to root it out. In the latter case, the problem is pre-empted by a leader in possession of that critically important trait – foresight. (See Herodotus and Thucydides.)

- Think BIG. Be BOLD. Be CONFIDENT. “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?” St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 14v12.

- At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a woman in Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin what the framers had wrought. He replied that they had created a republic – if she and citizens like her could keep it. The everlasting moral of this little exchange is that nations and civilizations are fragile; they easily decline. We are only one generation away from barbarity. What if teachers stopped teaching, parents stopped instructing, pastors stopped preaching, libraries stopped circulating, bookmakers stopped publishing, booksellers stopped selling, etc.? Then our human heritage would be seriously diminished in just 25 years, for the rising generation would not know it, and life as we know it would end. Leadership must ensure the continuity of the important things.

Servant Leadership

My take on "servant leadership":
We only serve what we love.
We only love what we know.
We only know what we have learned (through reading, hearing, studying, and reflecting on experience).
Now you can connect the dots between a liberal education at a university and leadership in the community. The Cook Leadership Academy endeavors to help leadership fellows fulfill their potential by advancing from study … to knowledge … to love … to service.

The French philosoph Voltaire had keen insight into one motivation to serve others, and his insight sheds light on servant leadership. The prevalence of evil and the limits of human knowledge lead many people – even the best theists among us – to believe that they do not know God as well as they desire to. (“Why did God let this tragedy happen to this child?”) Since it is difficult to love and serve what we do not really know, our fallback position is to love what we can know – our fellow human beings. When we know and love others, we empathize with them in their suffering. Instead of being a helpless bystander, we confront the banality of evil that God apparently allows. When we try to alleviate others’ suffering – when we try to take them to a better place – we become servant leaders. (This foundational human impulse also helps explain the rise of the secular progressive movement in the U.S. after the Civil War.)

Social psychologists from Gustav LeBon to Daniel Goleman have taught us that people’s brains (specifically their limbic system) align with each other psychologically. Effective leaders understand this phenomenon and take responsibility for setting the tone to get people to work toward a common goal. Think of Winston Churchill’s radio broadcasts to the British people during the Battle of Britain. His unexpected defiance steeled the nation’s resolve.

Leadership begins by learning to lead yourself. Once you learn to lead yourself, you can be more trusted to lead others. There is a memorable quotation attributed to Alexander the Great, inspired perhaps by his teacher Aristotle: "What good is it that I have conquered the whole world -- but cannot conquer myself?"

The Greatest Democratic Leaders

Democracy requires a different kind of leader – I think a better one. Rather than rising to the top by conquest or dynastic succession, the democratic leader comes into authority through a constitutional process, with the consent of the governed, and by demonstrating good judgment and right actions frequently enough to win the confidence of fellow citizens. In our present difficulties, isn't it natural to wonder who’ve been the best democratic leaders of all time? In the U.S., informal surveys show that five individuals usually make the cut. They are the models, the gold standard, for what democratic statesmen should be. Chronologically, the five are:
1. Pericles
2. George Washington
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. Winston Churchill
5. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
(Cicero, Konrad Adenauer, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher also get mentions.)
For more on democratic statesmanship, see my blog post, "Democracy's Greatest Leaders," January 28, 2011.

Leading is heady, especially if you are fortunate enough to meet with a series of successes. It is crucial that you not let the successes go to your head. It will make you become arrogant and treat others with hubris. Remember: It is not our weaknesses that make us trip. It is too much of our strength that makes us trip.


Heroes, Saints, Leaders

In ages past, there were heroes and saints. People looked to heroes and saints, not celebrities, for inspiration. For models of fully realized, good human beings, our civilization educated the young to look to heroes (after Homer depicted them so brilliantly in the Iliad and Odyssey) and to saints (after the New Testament was written and the church was founded).
But in the modern age, we seem less inclined to seek inspiration from heroes and saints. Unfortunately, many youth nowadays look to celebrities to get their bearings on the path to the good life. Or their training in college equips them to become mere managers who have given little thought to the ethical requirements of leadership.

Experience eventually teaches us all that celebrity and managing are not enough. People who have outgrown their youthful indiscretions look higher, to leaders. Leaders are what we call the heroes and saints of secular modernity. All the leadership gurus and the books and articles they churn out are trying to define leadership in much the same way the church establishes and applies the rules for canonizing saints.

- Ultimately leadership is a civilizational mission. Don’t prattle on and on about leadership until you tell me where you want to go. It’s not just about traits and techniques. Leaders need to know where they are leading others. Tell us where you want to take us. In one minute or less, you should be able to tell us what needs to change, and what needs to stay the same.
To see where leaders want to take us, measure them by the past leaders they admire. Leaders should study the leaders of the past to see contrasting models and antimodels.

- Leaders should also study the empires and civilizations of the past. Every one of them carried within it the seeds of decline and dissolution and the seeds of growth and betterment. It’s the story of the wheat and the tares. Our empire and civilization are no different. The U.S. has within it the seeds of both decline and betterment. (Just like the human body. Each of us is carrying viruses and bacteria that could kill us if we continually make poor decisions by not eating right, or getting enough rest, etc.) Leaders thus make the difference between progress and decline.
Leaders must be discerning. They must be able to identify the seeds of destruction and the seeds of betterment. At the very least, they must do no harm. Ideally, they should be able to make prudent decisions that lead to the true betterment of human beings in community.
If leaders are well educated, then they know the big picture about empires and civilizations. Knowing the big picture, they will figure out the best policies that can win broad assent. For example, everybody ought to agree that fiscal responsibility is a virtue. We should spend within our means, and only spend beyond our means in an emergency.
It’s not happening in Washington. There is an air of unreality inside the Beltway because the pols there don’t have to balance the budget each year the way state governments and families do. Today's professional pols are neither heroes nor saints.
We the People need to take back our government and take back our nation. We should start by hiring true leaders at the polls.

- My philosophy of meetings and reports: To use a football metaphor, why huddle if you're not calling a play? If a meeting or report does not lead to a specific play in which all know their role, the expected high-level performance, and the desired outcome -- if the play is not designed to advance our field position -- then don't bother.

- Our leadership training of young people is built on four cornerstones:

(1) a liberal education in the humanities and social sciences;

(2) close mentoring in which an accomplished leader becomes a strong advisor to one or more leadership fellows;

(3) philosophical and political understanding of the center -- the center must hold;

(4) relationship skills.

Gratitude

Our work at the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies is meaningful. We are grateful to Ralph Hauenstein, Grand Valley State University, and our many donors and supporters for the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of others.

To learn more about leadership formation at the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies, visit http://www.allpresidents.org/