In attempting to organize a society as large as our own, the question is not whether there will be leaders, but who they are and what their priorities will be. Today, power often belongs to those who seek it most aggressively, those who market themselves as “winners,” and those who elevate their own success above all else. But are these the best leaders, or are they just who we’ve trained ourselves to see as cream of the crop.
In the later half of the 20th century, with the fear of communism on the rise, popular sentiment shifted away from prioritizing the communitarian model that had dominated the war years. American propaganda and messaging, once laded with statements encouraging shared civic action and duty, “Victory gardens,” “We can do it!,” “Do with less- So they’ll have enough!,” shifted toward the domination of the individual, and glamorizing those who dominated their fields. It was this shift that gave rise to Reaganomics, the Trickle-Down theory, and the glorification of Donald Trump and the super-wealthy reality stars of the 2000’s.
Certainly the Communist movement did not provide a better model of civic engagement. Preferring to enforce communitarianism at the end of a sword, the Soviet authoritarian approach was no more effective than abandoning communitarianism altogether. But late 20th century American politicians capitalized on the communist threat and demonized communitarianism writ large, allowing an increasingly ambitious new class of politician to dominate the sphere and erode the civil society that once made us so strong.
But is that what leadership is supposed to be? Should those who we lionize, who we canonize, and who we elevate to positions of power, be the be the ones who have prioritized their own needs over those of their communities? In other words, should our leaders be those who hope to gain the most from their positions of leadership, or those who are most willing to serve?
Aristotle, writing more than two thousand years ago, addressed this very issue. He categorized rulers not only by the structure of their governments—monarchy, aristocracy, democracy—but by the nature of their rule. A bad ruler governs for his own benefit, using power as a tool for personal gain. Any ruler, says Aristotle, who gains as an individual from his or her position is a bad ruler.
A good ruler, on the other hand, may benefit from his or her rule, but only because he or she is part of the group being led. Just as the captain of a ship moves forward through the ocean as quickly as the rest of the crew, so a good ruler or leader should only benefit along with the rest of the society he or she governs. The best leaders do not rule because they crave authority or monetary gain, but because they are the most capable of prioritizing the interests of the whole over their own ambitions.
The Founding Fathers were deeply influenced by this idea when designing the U.S. Constitution, and competing methodologies to curtail the rise of such “bad rulers” can be seen in the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, and others. They did not create a system that rewarded personal ambition alone; they created checks and balances, term limits, and decentralized power structures to ensure that leadership remained tied to the public good, rather than the self-interest of individuals. They recognized that ambition would not be entirely curtailed, but made attempts to keep the power that came with it in check.
For years, the American people seemed to recognize the importance of electing leaders with the best interests of the country at heart. Yet today, we often seem to have abandoned this standard. The people we elevate to positions of power are not those who have demonstrated the most selflessness, wisdom, or commitment to public service, but those who have simply played the political or media game most effectively.
Perhaps it is time to take a second look at where we are. Who are your leaders? What do they prioritize? Are they invested in the prosperity of the whole, or only in their own advancement? And if it is the latter, what does that say about the values of the society that put them there? And now that Communism is no longer a threat, can we divorce communitarianism from its authoritarian cousin and begin to prioritize community service and the best parts of 1950’s values in a way that benefits the community at large, and elevates those members of society who are most fit to serve in leadership roles.
The cold war is over. Aristotle may be hiding some ancient secrets to rebuilding our parties and our society in our own best interests.
Share this post