What Should We Expect From Political And Military Leaders?
By Practitioners, For Practitioners
Strategy Central - August 26, 2024
Introduction
In a democracy, where the power to lead is derived from the people's will, the character of those in leadership roles is paramount. Throughout history, from the ancient philosophies of Plato and Confucius to the writings of the American Founding Fathers, good character has been consistently upheld as a critical trait for rulers. But what is good character, and why is it so crucial for national leaders? How can citizens judge the character of their political leaders without ever meeting them, and why is being a good judge of character vital to the success of the American democratic experiment? This essay explores these questions, delving into the historical definitions of good character, why it matters in leadership, and how citizens can cultivate the judgment necessary to elect leaders who will genuinely serve the public good.
Thoughts On Character
In the intricate tapestry of American democracy, the character of its leaders—both military and political—is not merely an adornment but a foundational thread that holds the entire structure together. These leaders' development and expectation of personal character are crucial for their roles and for preserving democratic ideals. The comparison between the character expected of military officers and politicians reveals shared values and essential differences, each vital to their respective professions. Understanding these similarities and distinctions underscores why character remains a non-negotiable requirement for those entrusted with power over every citizen.
The American people must limit the power of military and political leaders to preserve the core democratic principle that government exists to serve the people, not the ambitions of a politician or martial leader. History has shown that unchecked power can lead to tyranny, where leaders prioritize personal or authoritarian agendas over the public good. The Founding Fathers foresaw this most human of impulses and labored to create a system capable of mitigating it. Through its structure of checks and balances, the U.S. Constitution ensures that power remains distributed among branches of government, protecting individual liberties and preventing the rise of a dominant ruler by avoiding a concentration of power, especially in the Executive branch. By actively supporting this system, citizens safeguard their freedoms, ensuring that those in power remain accountable to the will of the people, not the other way around.
In an era marked by deepening tribalism, we must maintain sight of the fundamental importance of character in those who wield public power. The tools and might of government, designed to serve the collective good, can be dangerously misused if placed in the hands of individuals who prioritize personal gain over public service. Each voter bears a critical responsibility: to look beyond the allure of specific policy promises and thoroughly examine the character of their chosen representatives. It is not enough to support someone simply because they align with a few key goals. Voters must ask themselves whether they would trust this person as a boss, co-worker, neighbor, or friend. If the answer is no, then that individual should not be entrusted with the significant power of public office. Good character creates the conditions for trusting someone with specific powers over every citizen, not just the person voting for a particular politician.
In the military, the stakes are high. Leaders must be held to the highest standards of integrity, professionalism, and dedication to the collective mission. Personal ambition and self-serving behavior have no place in positions of authority where the machinery of democracy and national security are at risk. Screening for honest, patriotic leadership is not just a safeguard but a conservative act of preserving the very principles that underpin our society. We must set clear standards for behavior, ensure that those who stray from these standards are held accountable, and reward those who exemplify our values. In doing so, we protect our institutions from the possibility of a military coup or used corruptly against the American people. A preferred type of character is believed to be the best measure of ensuring that power remains a tool for the common good, not a weapon for individual gain.
Character Expectations: Military Officers & Politicians
Military officers and politicians share several key character traits indispensable to effective leadership. Both are expected to demonstrate integrity, accountability, and a commitment to the public good. Integrity in this context refers to the consistency of actions, values, methods, and principles, ensuring that leaders act in a manner that is honest and morally upright. For military officers, this integrity is often tested in the heat of battle, where decisions must be made under extreme pressure, and the consequences can be immediate and life-altering. For politicians, integrity is tested in the public sphere, where the pressures of public opinion, political opposition, and personal ambition can tempt them to stray from their moral compass.
Accountability is another shared trait, essential to maintaining the people's trust and ensuring that leaders are answerable for their actions. Military officers are held accountable to their superiors and the men and women they lead. Their decisions can directly affect their soldiers' lives and the success of their missions. On the other hand, politicians are accountable to the electorate, whose trust is vital for maintaining the legitimacy of their office. This accountability is exercised through elections, where voters can remove leaders who fail to uphold the expected standards.
We instill in our cadets and midshipmen the values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. Regardless of societal changes, we cannot forsake these values, as they are essential for building strong bonds among those fighting for a greater cause. In contrast, politicians often use words to distort the truth, which has unfortunately become expected. Lying is frequently viewed as a mere strategy to garner support but should not be normalized. Instead, it should be met with consequences. Fabricating false narratives and distorting the truth erode democratic principles and go against the traditional expectations of good character. It's crucial to uphold this commitment to honesty and integrity to maintain a productive relationship between the public and the elected leadership.
Character Differences: Military Officers & Politicians
Despite similarities, there are critical differences in the character traits emphasized in military and political leadership, rooted in the distinct nature of their responsibilities. Military officers are often expected to embody courage and self-sacrifice to an exceptional degree. Their profession demands a readiness to put their lives on the line and to make decisions that could lead others into danger. This courage is physical and moral, requiring them to stand firm in their decisions, even when faced with significant opposition or personal risk.
Political leaders, while also requiring courage, are more often called upon to demonstrate diplomacy, empathy, and an ability to navigate complex social dynamics. In the political arena, compromise is usually necessary, and leaders must balance competing interests while striving to achieve the greater good. This requires a flexible yet firm character in its core values, capable of leading and listening, and accepting compromise on policy without sacrificing principle.
The traditional view of character as an essential trait in military and political leadership has deep historical roots. The American Founding Fathers, heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinkers, believed that virtue was the bedrock of good governance. George Washington was revered for his military prowess and unwavering commitment to republican principles, serving as a model of integrity and honor for future leaders. Most presidents have followed his example, and those who strayed from it are typically judged for their shortcomings.
The Desirability of Good Character in Leadership
A good character in national leaders is desirable because it is the foundation for trust, stability, and promoting the common good. Leaders with good character are more likely to act in the best interests of their constituents rather than pursue personal gain or succumb to corruption. They are committed to principles of justice, fairness, and equality, which are essential for maintaining the social contract between the government and the governed.
A leader with good character is also more likely to be transparent, accountable, and responsive to the needs of the people. These qualities foster trust between the government and the public, which is crucial for the effective functioning of a democracy. When citizens trust their leaders, they are more likely to support government initiatives and participate in the democratic process, leading to a more engaged and stable society.
On the other hand, poor character in national leaders can have devastating consequences. Leaders who lack integrity, honesty, and moral fortitude are more susceptible to corruption, abuse of power, and the erosion of democratic institutions. History is replete with examples of leaders whose poor character led to tyranny, conflict, and the suffering of their people. From the despotic reign of Nero in ancient Rome to the corruption-ridden regimes of more recent history, the consequences of poor character in leadership are clear and dire.
Judging Good Character Without Meeting Leaders
Judging the character of their leaders, whether military or political, is a crucial responsibility for citizens. Most people will never meet their leaders. Instead, they must rely on the leaders' public actions, statements, and associations to gauge their character. A leader who consistently demonstrates ethical behavior, transparency, and a commitment to the public good will likely possess the character necessary for their role. Conversely, those who engage in dishonest or self-serving behavior reveal a lack of the character required for effective leadership.
Assessing a leader's character is pretty straightforward. It is best done by observing their actions. Good character signifies prioritizing well-being, accountability, and upholding the rule of law. The media and public records are critical in providing citizens with the information they need to evaluate their leaders' character. Investigative journalism, transparency initiatives, and public debates can illuminate a leader's past behavior, personal values, and decision-making processes, helping citizens accurately judge their leaders' character. The people a leader surrounds themselves with can indicate their values and priorities. Leaders of good character work with individuals committed to ethical governance, while those with poor character may align with corrupt figures.
The key is to be honest with yourself about what you see. In an 'us against them' environment, seeing anyone on your 'side' as righteous and correct and those 'others' as contemptible and wrong can be tempting but is counter to the good health and functioning of a democracy. In short, it is a dangerous illusion. The democratic drive for equality means an America made better for all Americans, not just one tribe. Honest analysis utilizing reputable sources should shed light on how beneficial policies and deliberate decisions made in crisis or negotiation are by a political leader. Military leaders should have a history of consistent good judgment, concern for personnel welfare, and achieving the objectives set out by civilian authorities. If their decisions and behavior reflect positively on their service and the Department of Defense, they will likely operate within the expected norms of good character and professional ethics.
Equality in education, justice, opportunity, freedom of conscience and religion, individual liberties, and rights have long been the goal of American democracy, with both parties representing good and bad ideas on that path. Regardless of the past, our society can only judge those in office or seeking it by their actions, words, and commitment to all Americans and the democratic system. This must be done honestly and with minimal bias. We cannot allow a tribal lens to blind us to the manipulation of those with low character or for those with a character deficit to persuade us into giving them power.
Policy interests diverge among factions, but the founding fathers intended for us to use logic and compromise in negotiating a path forward that most could live with. By blinding ourselves with tribal factionalism, we ignore the democratic foundation the Founders gave us. Negotiating a common good solution is difficult without parties that do not negotiate in good faith and with the interest of the majority in mind.
Conclusion
Good character is a requirement for both military and political leaders because they hold the reins of power and can shape the nation's future. Without strong character, this power can be easily corrupted, leading to decisions that harm the democratic fabric of society. The Framers of the Constitution understood this and crafted a system of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power. However, they also recognized that no system of government could withstand the corrosive effects of leaders who lacked virtue. As James Madison argued, the government structure was necessary, but the character of those who would lead it was equally so.
Ensuring our military and political leaders possess good character is not just desirable but a necessity for the continued success of American democracy. The shared values of integrity and accountability, coupled with the distinct demands of courage in the military and diplomacy in politics, create a framework within which these leaders can serve the public effectively. For the American public, the ability to judge the character of their leaders without direct interaction is a critical skill, ensuring the democratic process remains robust and that those entrusted with power are worthy of it. As the Framers understood, without leaders of character, the democratic experiment cannot sustain itself, making the cultivation and expectation of good character a timeless imperative.
Endnotes
Stephen E. Ambrose, “Duty, Honor, Country: A History of West Point” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966).
Kevin J. Lyles, “The Gatekeepers: Inside the Admissions Process of a Premier Service Academy" (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010).
Bernard Boëne, “The Military Academies,” in "Handbook of the Sociology of the Military", ed. Giuseppe Caforio (New York: Springer, 2006), 217–38.
John Adams, quoted in Bernard Bailyn, "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967), 169.
James Madison, “Federalist No. 51,” in "The Federalist Papers", ed. Charles R. Kesler (New York: Signet Classics, 2003), 347–53.
"A Timeless Imperative for Democracy: Judging the Character of National Political Leaders", August 19, 2024, file-aDiwwwbQ6nwX26nlmHPDv8xl.
Comments