This column is not about politics. It’s about leadership. It’s about how leaders who communicate honestly, inspire trust and model integrity achieve enduring success while promoting positive cultural change.
That’s why I try to avoid any discussion of politics. The political landscape has become so radically polarized it’s almost impossible to mention any candidate, party, or policy without alienating at least half my readers—or, as a moderate, alienating all of them.
However, recent events on the national stage offer lessons for leaders in both the public and private arenas so immediately relevant that it seems irresponsible not to address them. Consider how in the last month we have witnessed:
• A presidential debate pitting an incumbent of frighteningly diminished cognitive ability against a challenger astonishingly lacking in civility, character and self-restraint.
• An assassination attempt followed by a defiant show of bravado.
• A 90-minute populist filibuster at a national party convention saying nothing new.
• The president’s abrupt, unceremonious dropping out of the campaign under relentless pressure from his own erstwhile supporters.
• The fervent idolization of a new presumptive presidential candidate only recently disdained by many as dead weight in her role as vice president.
The peculiar circumstances of our times have not arrived unanticipated. Consider these lines written by the medieval philosopher Omar Khayyam nearly a thousand years ago, according to the classical translation:
Justice is the soul of the universe,
The universe is the body.
The angels are the wit of the body,
The heavens are the elements,
The creatures in it are the members.
Behold here the eternal unity;
The rest is only trumpery.
Now there’s a word you don’t hear anymore: “trumpery.” Its unfamiliarity makes it a fitting addition to the Ethical Lexicon:
Trumpery (trump·er·y/ truhm-puh-ree) noun — Attractive articles of little value or use; nonsense or twaddle; worthless finery.
In the context of modern political culture, we might suggest updating the definition to include the following:
• A wind that howls in the darkness and shakes the branches to no effect
• The discordant screeching of high-sounding self-praise and hollow excuses
• Apoplectic squawking in response to criticism
In writings elsewhere, I’ve elaborated on these musings by citing one of the most painful episodes in Biblical history. Jotham, the lone surviving son of the illustrious judge Gideon, chastises the people for standing by and allowing the wicked Abimelech to seize power by murdering Jotham’s brothers. His sardonic rebuke takes the form of a parable in which the trees, symbolizing the leaders of his generation, went in search of a king:
They asked the olive tree to come and rule over them. But the olive tree replied, “Shall I give up my good oil to go wave over the trees?”
So they went and asked the fig tree to rule over them. But the fig tree replied, “Shall I give up my sweetness to go and wave over the trees?”
Next, they asked the grape vine to rule over them. But the vine said, “Shall I give up my wine to go wave over the trees?”
Each tree represents a different kind of ruler: the olive is a wise and deliberating scholar; the fig is a savvy pragmatist and provider; the grape vine is a leader of discernment who can adapt to continuously shifting circumstances and demands.
But the olive, the fig and the vine each refused to answer the call. The question isn’t, Why did they decline? The question is: Why would they have been expected to do otherwise?
Indeed, what makes someone abandon success in private life to shoulder the burdens of public office? A person of genuine quality will be motivated only by the conviction that the people will respond to leadership and work together to build a prosperous society. There is no rationale for taking on the role of servant-leader over a people who have no interest in either serving or being served.
That’s why, when the olive, the fig and the vine recognized that their prospective subjects sought a king only to exempt themselves from responsibility rather than to rally around a noble cause, they declined to relinquish their own prosperity to go “wave over the trees.” What happened next was inevitable:
Finally, all the trees went and asked the thornbush to rule over them. And the thornbush replied, “If you will truly submit to my rule, then come and take shelter in my shade; but if not, then fire will come forth from my thorns and devour you.”
In the end, all the trees grew frustrated at the failure of their leaders to find a suitable king and took matters into their own hands. They solicited their own populist ruler—the thornbush—which, predictably, made impossible promises and ominous threats, with no attempt to build unity through common vision. Like unscrupulous and power-hungry aspirants across the ages, the thornbush resorted to hyperbole, intimidation and the vagaries of trumpery.
Spoiler alert: it didn’t end well. After a three-year reign, the coalition of malcontents splintered, violent discord ensued and Abimelech was killed in battle.
Charismatic rhetoric, overstated claims and grandiose promises will always attract a nucleus of passionate acolytes, all the more so in a leadership vacuum where quality candidates can’t be found or refuse to step forward. When no competent alternative arises to take the helm, people will turn to whoever shouts the loudest and pledges the most. And as the sound of trumpery becomes the norm, truly qualified candidates become increasingly marginalized and unnoticed.
But the same flamboyant leaders who incite zealotry among their core supporters simultaneously alienate and repel others through their incendiary rhetoric. The result is the inherent instability of a polarized society.
Authentic leadership is a duty, a privilege and a trust. The incompetent cannot be ethical, since they are ill-equipped to discharge their responsibilities. And the unethical cannot be competent, because they thrive amidst a culture of toxic strife.
When leaders have done their jobs, or when they are qualified to assume power, they have no need for belittling, name-calling, or character assassination. That approach may win devotees in the short term, but it will leave no lasting positive impression. It is a tale of trumpery, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It is the job of leaders to make the case for collaboration that inspires the people to seek common ground, to transcend their differences, to build consensus in pursuit of the common good. It’s the job of the people to identify such leaders, then follow wherever they lead.
