A unit takes on the personality of its commander. This old Army adage describes the relationship between the commander, or leader, and the character of the unit. It is accurate. During my tenure in the Army, I served in many different units under many different commanders. After a change of command, the change in the unit was often striking. A unit takes cues as to what is important and what is acceptable from its commander. These and other aspects of a commander’s persona subtly, and not so subtly, conform a unit to the commander. This is part of the reason why the Army carefully considers who it grants the honor of command. Not every officer enjoys or deserves the privilege of command, and this is how it should be. A commander enjoys great power and with that power comes great responsibility, the responsibility of shaping an organization.
During a political rally on the nineth of March this year, Mr. Trump mocked President Biden’s stutter. This is nothing new for Mr. Trump. Throughout his public life, he’s made it a practice to deride those who disagree with him, particularly though degrading some aspect of their physical make up. His coarseness knows no bounds. He has verbally attacked those with physical disabilities, women for menstruation, other men for stature. He does this to intimidate his opponents and entertain his supporters; all at the expense of those who oppose him, and more importantly, public discourse in the United States.
Such behavior reveals the heart of an insecure and fearful man. Mockery is the retreat of those ill prepared, or equipped, to engage in an intellectually rigorous debate. Faced with an inability to support their position or rebut an opposing proposition, they employ the tactic of ridicule to divert the debate and hide their own inability. This is a favorite tactic of a playground bully.
Such a leader would inexorably bend our national demeanor and conversation in a negative direction. Have we become so coarse and uncaring as a people as to regard ridicule as acceptable public behavior? Do we care so little for others, others that may grapple with a disability or not share what we consider as model physical appearance? While American politics has always been a rough and tumble sport, demeaning others does not well represent a multicultural or pluralistic society. Such ridicule, while entertaining for some, deeply hurts and offends others. And it is not an issue simply waved off by the claim that, “Well, they are just snowflakes.” As a society, we’ve worked hard to improve our national discourse, seeking to provide previously marginalized people with greater access and greater voice. Returning to a public conversational ethic of belittling the weak would stifle much needed intercourse, revealing us as small minded and weak. No matter the party, a leader will shape the country in their image.
Who we choose says something profound about the kind of people we are and what values we hold dear. Is truth important to us? Do we value graciousness and politeness? Perhaps, we like the braggart because we think too highly of ourselves. When we give a leader a pass on bullying, we say that we do not care about the weaker individuals in our society. These negative character traits find expression in equally adverse national and international policies. Other nations understand this as well. They carefully watch who we choose as a leader, knowing that our president directly influences our foreign policy. A brutish bully will always seek to manipulate relationships through threats and intimidation. A habitual liar will always dissemble to obscure intent and avoid responsibility. They evaluate the character of our president, understanding that their character will shape their actions as our foreign policy makers.
Our president represents the entire nation, not just his or her party. When we evaluate a potential president, we must spend time considering their character and what their choice would say about us as a people. In the case of president, the one elected official who represents all of us, we must evaluate how their character would influence our national policy and conversation. Do we want to elevate or demean our national interaction, or are we so wedded to particular party or positions as to overlook the issue of personal character and its effect on our national character.
No comments:
Post a Comment