Stepping back to make room for new leaders: be careful what you wish for

Matthew Dowd has a suggestion for our current leadership.

Instead of waiting for the diverse population of America to keep pushing and prodding, I would humbly suggest that we as white male Christians take it upon ourselves to step back and give more people who don’t look like us access to the levers of power.

We don’t have to wait, and our country is in desperate need of more diverse leaders. It is that diverse leadership which will not only represent more of what America looks like today, but it will give us the opportunity to find solutions which homogenous models of leadership aren’t able to.

Yes, let me repeat, we as white male Christians should do what real leadership demands and practice a level of humility which demonstrates strength by stepping back from the center of the room and begin to give up our seats at the table.

We should make this move not because we feel threatened, but because we know it is morally right and it is what would help America in this troubling time. The best leaders and change makers make themselves dispensable. And that is what me and my fellow white male Christians must do more often.

We don’t need to be the CEO of nearly every major company in America. We don’t need to be the majority of the people who hold political power. We don’t need to be President. We don’t need to be a Supreme Court Justice. We don’t need to be the ones who dominate conversations and run the meetings.

Let us let others step in to fill that power vacuum.

There's more at the link.

The trouble with leadership is that, irrespective of race, creed or color, it requires effective, efficient, competent persons of integrity.  As many as possible of those attributes should ideally be demonstrated incrementally, before a leader is given the reins of power.  To give those reins to those who have not demonstrated those attributes isn't compassionate, or responsible, or "the right thing" - it's folly of the worst kind.  Of course, we do so routinely - witness the quality (or lack thereof) of the politicians we elect to office.  There's a reason why politics offers such a rich field for satire.  If in doubt, see the comments of H. L. Mencken, or Ambrose Bierce, or Mark Twain on the subject (not to mention William Shakespeare).

I think this quotation from Shakespeare is a fitting answer to Mr. Dowd:

Tis much when sceptres are in children's hands,
But more when envy breeds unkind division:
There comes the ruin, there begins confusion.

What we're dealing with in this country, right now, is the politics of envy.  Those espousing it are frequently like children in terms of their approach to the real world.  They aren't interested in how things are;  in fact, they regard that as part of the problem.  They see things in terms of how they want them to be, and demand to be given the reins of power so that they can bring that about.  Whether or not it will be good to bring it about, or practical, or worthwhile, is irrelevant from their perspective.  Furthermore, many of them have yet to demonstrate anything even approaching effectiveness, or efficiency, or competence, in the political arena;  and as for integrity?  Just look at the number of our politicians who either have criminal records, or are (or have been) under investigation for ethical and/or moral and/or legal peccadilloes, or have risen to prominence in (and because of) political machines that are legendary for their corruption.  Look, too, at the number of politicians who have grown rich in office (or whose spouses or families have grown rich).  In this case, I would argue that correlation most emphatically does imply causation.

That's the problem with Mr. Dowd's analysis.  He can see and feel the pressure being exerted by these people, but his answer is to hand over the reins of power, step back, and let them do their best (or worst, depending on one's perspective).  I would argue that's the worst possible solution.  Rather, let's find leaders in other circles who have already begun to demonstrate effectiveness, efficiency, competence and integrity.  Let's nurture them, bring them on, give them more responsibilities as they prove themselves ready for them, and ensure that by the time they're ready to take the reins of power, they also have the experience and expertise necessary to use them as wisely and as well as possible.  By then, they should understand that the politics of envy are not the "art of the possible", but the aspiration for rainbows and unicorns - i.e. "something for nothing".  Furthermore, let's recognize that there will be other leaders hot on their heels, who also deserve mentoring, nurturing and formation.  This is a process that must be implemented for the long term.  Any lesser approach would be irresponsible.

For people of faith such as Mr. Dowd (and myself), that approach also fulfils a Biblical mandate:  "He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much".  That faithfulness should be tested, not taken for granted;  and tested regularly, not once only.  In this day and age, that's not a small thing.

Of course, this is largely a pipe-dream.  It requires leaders of vision, with a sense of responsibility, who are willing to invest in the next generation of leaders and "bring them on" to take their place in due course.  Very, very few of our present politicians display such vision or responsibility.  That, too, is why Mr. Dowd's vision must inevitably fail.

Peter