A fantastic column. Bernstein (and so many others) completely misapprehend how leadership functions. Leadership is inherently about moral choices—be it the leadership of a nation or the leadership of a company. Grasping that fundamental is the first step toward great leadership. You can’t be an evil person and be a great leader or even a great politician (unless you bizarrely imagine the only measure of a politician is in winning office).
I appreciate your detailed breakdown of the sometimes murky relationship between personal virtue and professional conduct, but I feel like Bernstein putting Carter and Johnson in the "bad" category while not mentioning Reagan kind of renders his argument moot
I’ve long thought we should have a basic test to hold elected office- the test should correspond to the position. Doctors, lawyers and teachers all have to pass tests to practice. Why should senators or presidents be different? It would acknowledge the importance of the role, establish it as an actual profession worthy of competence, and ensure our elected officials have at least a high school level understanding of how the government functions. And that they can read.
Yeah, maybe, but Trump wouldn’t have been able to pass one. I realize the idea is ripe with possibility for fuckery, but if done well, it could help. Maybe just a basic, single oral question about the constitution that is not open to interpretation. Lottery style, so no one can cheat and tell the candidate the answer ahead of time. I don’t know, it seems like something has to get different. This fucking sucks. At a minimum, our elected officials should understand how our government works.
I think it’s kind of a mistake to think the problem is intellectual? Vance could pass one.
fascism isn’t a failure of knowledge which leads to moral failures. It’s a moral failure which leads to conspiracy theories/lies/cognitive failures. Pound, Heidegger, and lots of other very smart people have been fascists; Jefferson was a slaver. Education or knowledge tests can’t really solve this because it’s about ethics and evil, not intelligence, imo.
You’re absolutely right, and it is appalling that we have these people representing us. A test would not solve any sort of problem- in fact we might end up with a more competent set of fascists, which would be worse. I’m grasping at straws, wanting something easier that could fix this absolute shitstorm. A little bit of certainty would be really welcome right now, but if I’m certain of the wrong thing, I’m no better than the cult.
Thank you for taking the time to talk (type?) me through this.
The U.S. has a myth of the "citizen-soldier" and "citizen-leader" that harks back to the Roman hero Cincinnatus—who was begged by the Roman Senate to stop farming and become a Dictator in order to defeat the Aequi (who Rome had tried to conquer repeatedly over the years, and they would attack Rome back whenever it look weak enough to take advantage of), so he did, defeated the Aequi in sixteen days, then handed power back to the Senate and returned to farming.
As I've pointed out before, Cincinnatus is an aspirational figure, and most REAL citizen-leaders are neither military geniuses nor so un-enamoured of absolute power that they just hand it back once the reason for their seizing it is achieved. (Neither Sulla nor Caesar did, after all.) While we love to think that the average citizen has the wit, understanding, and basic decency that that untrustworthy breed known as "politicians" lack, the truth is that the only difference between most citizens and most politicians is lack of access to the people who would pay to put them in power, so they could help advance those people who paid's various agendas.
So, yes, we need both—somebody who is a good person AND a good politician, in order to make their promises a reality. Former NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio was by all accounts a good person, but his administration seems like a lot of good ideas he couldn't implement because he'd alienated several core constituencies, including the Jewish community and the NYPD (who seemed to HATE him!).
A fantastic column. Bernstein (and so many others) completely misapprehend how leadership functions. Leadership is inherently about moral choices—be it the leadership of a nation or the leadership of a company. Grasping that fundamental is the first step toward great leadership. You can’t be an evil person and be a great leader or even a great politician (unless you bizarrely imagine the only measure of a politician is in winning office).
I don't know that I'd say he *completely* misunderstands! I find his writing helpful in general, even if I disagreed on some points here.
Fair enough.
I appreciate your detailed breakdown of the sometimes murky relationship between personal virtue and professional conduct, but I feel like Bernstein putting Carter and Johnson in the "bad" category while not mentioning Reagan kind of renders his argument moot
I don't think he was giving an exhaustive list!
Reagan is someone who was pretty competent as a president in a lot of ways, but who was an evil person and so did a lot of harm.
I’ve long thought we should have a basic test to hold elected office- the test should correspond to the position. Doctors, lawyers and teachers all have to pass tests to practice. Why should senators or presidents be different? It would acknowledge the importance of the role, establish it as an actual profession worthy of competence, and ensure our elected officials have at least a high school level understanding of how the government functions. And that they can read.
I fear such tests would be used the way poll tests were—to exclude marginalized people through manipulating the tests.
Yeah, maybe, but Trump wouldn’t have been able to pass one. I realize the idea is ripe with possibility for fuckery, but if done well, it could help. Maybe just a basic, single oral question about the constitution that is not open to interpretation. Lottery style, so no one can cheat and tell the candidate the answer ahead of time. I don’t know, it seems like something has to get different. This fucking sucks. At a minimum, our elected officials should understand how our government works.
I think it’s kind of a mistake to think the problem is intellectual? Vance could pass one.
fascism isn’t a failure of knowledge which leads to moral failures. It’s a moral failure which leads to conspiracy theories/lies/cognitive failures. Pound, Heidegger, and lots of other very smart people have been fascists; Jefferson was a slaver. Education or knowledge tests can’t really solve this because it’s about ethics and evil, not intelligence, imo.
You’re absolutely right, and it is appalling that we have these people representing us. A test would not solve any sort of problem- in fact we might end up with a more competent set of fascists, which would be worse. I’m grasping at straws, wanting something easier that could fix this absolute shitstorm. A little bit of certainty would be really welcome right now, but if I’m certain of the wrong thing, I’m no better than the cult.
Thank you for taking the time to talk (type?) me through this.
I don’t think you’re no better than the cult! we’re in a bad situation and it’s pretty normal to want to find some way to fix things!
Excellently argued!
Added to the list of misconceptions that are taken for granted as truth in America and which need to change if we are to rise from the ashes.
The U.S. has a myth of the "citizen-soldier" and "citizen-leader" that harks back to the Roman hero Cincinnatus—who was begged by the Roman Senate to stop farming and become a Dictator in order to defeat the Aequi (who Rome had tried to conquer repeatedly over the years, and they would attack Rome back whenever it look weak enough to take advantage of), so he did, defeated the Aequi in sixteen days, then handed power back to the Senate and returned to farming.
As I've pointed out before, Cincinnatus is an aspirational figure, and most REAL citizen-leaders are neither military geniuses nor so un-enamoured of absolute power that they just hand it back once the reason for their seizing it is achieved. (Neither Sulla nor Caesar did, after all.) While we love to think that the average citizen has the wit, understanding, and basic decency that that untrustworthy breed known as "politicians" lack, the truth is that the only difference between most citizens and most politicians is lack of access to the people who would pay to put them in power, so they could help advance those people who paid's various agendas.
So, yes, we need both—somebody who is a good person AND a good politician, in order to make their promises a reality. Former NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio was by all accounts a good person, but his administration seems like a lot of good ideas he couldn't implement because he'd alienated several core constituencies, including the Jewish community and the NYPD (who seemed to HATE him!).