Wednesday, February 14, 2018

So what gives? What happened to this generation of leaders? ...When they’re not busy clapping each other on the back steering us dead-on into the Icebergs/Goldbergs...

The End of Leadership


Or, Why We Don’t Have Leaders Today — We Have Demagogues


Here’s a tiny question.

What happened to this generation of leaders?

Climate change, financial crisis, inequality, debt, stagnation, robo-dystopia…a nearly endless, panic-attack inducing list of Really Major Global Issues Threatening the Ongoing Survival and Prosperity of Humankind…and they mostly seem to be slumped over snoring at the wheel…when they’re not busy clapping each other on the back steering us dead-on into the icebergs. (Goldbergs)

In this little essay, I want to advance a small thesis. Many of today’s leaders aren’t worthy of the word. Because they are not leaders at all. So what are they? Let me explain, with a simple example.

There is no good reason for American leaders, left and right, to have inflicted decades of austerity on a society in which incomes have been stagnant and living standards have fallen,inequality has spiralled, and the average person’s future is ever more uncertain. No good reason at all. Even the IMF has both renounced austerity and agreed that advanced economies can not just sustain, but probably need, a deficit to operate at optimal levels of productivity.

I could repeat these stories with reference to politicians around the globe. In Canada, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Britain— where a generation of politicians proclaims they “do not believe in” a European Union whose living standards are vastly higher than theirs. Here is the issue: there is simply no support — whether economic, ethical, or moral; whether scientific, rational, or humanistic — for most of their policies, stances, perspectives.

So what gives? What happened to this generation of leaders?

There is something very different about many of today’s so-called leaders. It is that they are demagogues. Let’s review what “demagogue” actually means. Here’s a decent definition:
“a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.”

Let me explain why that’s important, using the example of the 80s. A generation of conservative politicians then — Thatcher, Reagan, and so on — and the like — ripped up and rewrote social contracts wholesale.

So what is the difference between them — and the demagogues of today? A very great one indeed. There was intellectual and perhaps moral support for the decisions the leaders of yesterday took.

Here’s a simple example. We may disagree now over trickle-down economics, since prosperity hasn’t trickled down. But at the time there was at least a reasoned position in support of it, built on a consensus amongst thinkers. You may think of the Laffer Curve as a simple illustration: it may have been proven largely wrong now, but at least there was an effort to produce a reason to slash public services then. (The Laffer Curve still proves correct today)

The neo-demagogues of meta-modernity are very different. There is no serious intellectual, moral, or ethical support for their decisions at all. Demaogues are irrational, insensible, not beyond reason — but scurrying in the abyss deep below it. They are simply, as the definition simply says, “arousing the passions and prejudices of people”. Let’s take immigration as a simple example. Decades of logic — not to mention evidence — confirm that (legal) immigration only benefits advanced economies.

Demagogues do not act rationally or sensibly, reasonably or sanely — whether in terms of economics, morality, politics, or anything else that might justifiably be called a system of thought. Why not? They prey on our emotions; they exploit our biases and prejudices; like magicians, they devour our fears and dangle before us our wishes. They are sorcerers of our animal beings. Pumping the bellows of unreason, they stoke the dark fires that burn deep in the human soul.

It’s true: empiricism alone can never guide us in the human world — but still, we must struggle not merely to be prisoners of our biases and prejudices. And that is precisely what demagogues reduce us to. Unthinking servants of our own worst selves. The selves that, instead of thinking, dreaming, wondering, rebelling, defying, creating, loving — are filled with spite, greed, jealousy, fear, and, at last, hate, of the self and the other, of god and man, of life and death alike.

There are many ways in which the institutions of modernity are decaying, sputtering out, breaking down. But one of the most significant, insidious, and damaging is that they no longer seem to reliably produce leaders — but demagogues. And, in turn, demagogues are, of course, historical bellwethers of decline, stagnation, disintegration.

True leaders lead people to an impossible destination. It does not exist in the world. It exists in being. They lead us towards to our better selves. Those seared, impossibly, defiantly, courageously, with happiness, purpose, meaning. Lives which may swim in the mighty river of grace, and, because they give thanks for the boundless privilege of life, bestow the gift of mercy and love upon each and every fellow traveller they meet. That is the defining characteristic of every leader that history remembers. 

Demagogues do not lead us to our better selves. They lead us to the very opposite: our worse selves. They condemn people to become nothing more than twisted, stunted caricatures of who they were meant to be. And by doing so, they diminish what is truly most valuable in the world: human potential.

For the tragedy of the demagogue is this: the demagogue is an anti-leader. He is not merely the absence of leadership. But the opposite. He is not just the drought. He is the locust and the flood. His followers aren’t merely left no better off — but also no worse off. Life’s most valuable creation is what is truly wasted by demagogues. The one thing we may each call our own. Ourselves.

Demagogues reduce us to being empty, twisted, broken husks of the people we should have been. People who, in the act of wasting their days on spite, greed, envy, and anger, fail to develop, grow, become themselves — and do great and mighty, noble and soaring things. That is why history condemns not just demagogues. But also the people who eagerly follow them. For they are prisoners. But they are also jailers. Each of whom holds the key to the cell next door.

I don’t think this is the end of leadership — forever. But I do think that leadership is in deep, serious, and historic trouble today. As both art and science, practice and pursuit, creation and gift. In all these ways, I think that leadership demands abiding, radical reinvention — and further, that reimagining it is going to require coming squarely to terms with the failures and shortcomings that have produced a hollow generation of demagogues with scarcely a single true leader amongst them. And so it is up to each and every one of us who wishes to be a leader to understand precisely why. For we can no longer conveniently leave the necessary, worthy, difficult work of leadership at the doorstep of the boardrooms and backrooms (and Agudah conventions).

Let us remember where leaders truly lead each and every life that walks with them. To lives brimming with purpose, riven with grace, seared with love, overflowing with meaning. That is the truest miracle of all. That, from mere things scurrying and clawing at one another in the glittering darkness, we may follow one another to the pure light of our higher selves.



MAGA said...

Partially true, but we do have leaders today. We had Obama who led us in the wrong direction, thinking that being soft on the enemy will make them love us; now we have Trump. Of course he is egotistic, but he does have a vision and is leading the charge to make America once again a strong nation. If you can imagine a Hillary win, you will realize that Trump is a leader, one who has taken us on a very different path than the last 8 years.

Garnel Ironheart said...

What a dumb article.
First of all, what thinking person says that accepting deficit spending is normal? In the province of Ontario the government spends 1 billion dollars a month - 1 BILLION - on debt maintenance charges because of decades of deficit spending mostly justified by the need never ever to say no to the voters or the public sector unions.
A billion dollars - not on health care, not on education, not on infrastructure, but to the holders of provincial debt. And the amount goes up every year which means more and more of my tax dollars don't go to service me but to pay off someone else's promises for prosperity.
And after decades of overspending and raising debt do we have an equal and prosperous society? Well no, we don't. The more we spend, the more we're told how we're not spending enough. Doesn't anyone see through that farce? We spend billions on welfare but more than ever people on welfare are in need. Does that make sense?
And seriously, the EU as an economic example? The EU only has a semblance of economic stability because one country - Yahwohl! - has a sense of financial discipline and restraint. Without them the EU would be Greece writ large.
But the worst part of this article is the underlying premise. In a democracy the electorate gets the leader it deserves. If Trump is president and Hillary was the also-ran it's because America wanted one of those two. Despite all their obvious corruption and demagoguery Americans wanted to choose one of them.
A demagogue doesn't create the hatred and populism. He just rides the wave the electorate generates. Blaming him shows a complete lack of self-awareness.

Happy Valentine's Day! said...

Happening Now:

Agudath Israel of America National Leadership Mission to Washington, DC: rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Agudah's Executive Vice President, presents senator Ted Cruz with his own inscribed copy of "Rabbi Sherer."