Blog

How many explanations have you heard in recent days for why Donald Trump resoundingly beat Kamala Harris in this week’s presidential election? Ten, Twenty, more? There has been no shortage of postmortems, virtually all focused on the United States of America and the specifics of the two candidates.

But as I always argue, leadership is a system with three parts, each of which is of equal importance: 1) leaders; 2) followers, and 3) contexts. I similarly always make clear that the word “contexts” is plural. So, if we want to analyze a certain leader-follower dynamic we need to set it not just in one context but in several simultaneously. Therefore, to understand what happened this week it’s essential to consider not just the context that is the United States of America but the context that is larger, the global one. It puts what happened here, in the U.S., in perspective.

Put simply, the losing ignominiously Democrats are in good company. They include Britain’s Rishi Sunak’s Tories; France’s Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble coalition; Japan’s Shigeru Ishiba’s Liberal Democrats, and even India’s Narendra Modi’s once dominant party, the BJP. Moreover, just this week the governing coalition of Germany’s Olaf Scholz collapsed, virtually guaranteeing that federal elections instead of taking place as originally scheduled, late next year, will be pushed forward, to early next year. Will Scholz remain chancellor thereafter? I suggest you don’t bet on it.

Nor is our neighbor to the north exempt from the general trend. The approval ratings of Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, are under 30 percent, so miserably low they make President Joe Biden’s look good!

To summarize the situation, the incumbents in every single one of the ten major countries that held national elections in 2024 were “given a kicking by voters”! Never in 124 years of tracking has this happened – until now.*  

None of this makes the results of the American presidential election any less momentous. Donald Trump is no Kier Starmer (centrist leader of the Labour Party who replaced Sunak as prime minister). Still, the backlash against democratic incumbents worldwide, along with a swing to the right not just in the United States but in Europe, is illuminating. Just what it illuminates about leader and followers in democratic systems will be addressed in my next post.

——————————————————————————————————————-

*The phrase and the figures are from John Burn-Murdoch, writing for the Financial Times.

• American leaders can be convicted felons and still be wildly successful. American followers generally cannot.
• American leaders can be held liable for sexual abuse and still be wildly successful. American followers generally cannot.
• American leaders can be inveterate liars, fabricators, and prevaricators and still be wildly successful. American followers generally cannot.
• American leaders can threaten, intimidate, and insult and still be wildly successful. American followers generally cannot.
• American leaders can play kissy face with foreign leaders who oppose American interests and still be wildly successful. American followers generally cannot.
• American leaders can have episodes of cognitive impairment and still be wildly successful. American followers generally cannot.
• American leaders can slander their predecessors and still be wildly successful. American followers generally cannot.
• American leaders can be impetuous, ill-informed, and incurious and still be wildly successful. American followers generally cannot.  
• American leaders can be widely assessed as narcissistic and self-absorbed and still be wildly successful. American followers generally cannot.
• American leaders can regularly curse in public; remark in public about the size of another man’s penis; gesture in public oral sex and still be wildly successful. American followers generally cannot.

Whoever said in America was no double standard? Whoever said in America life was fair? Whoever said in America could never be a tyrant? A single individual who dominates the national discourse. A single individual who dominates the national agenda. A single individual who dominates the poltical culture. A single individual who dominates his party. A single individual who dominates the courts. A single individual who dominates fiscal policy. A single individual who dominates foreign policy. A single individual who will be so powerful he will dominate everyone and everything around him.

Whoever said was wrong. Donald J. Trump will certainly dominate me. Unless I emigrate he – or, in the event of illness or death, one of his minions – will be my leader and I his follower until, at least, January 2029.

In August the journal Leadership published an article I wrote titled, “Bad Leadership – Why We Steer Clear.” Why, I asked in the piece, did the leadership industry focus almost entirely on good leadership while it ignored almost entirely bad leadership. “Overwhelmingly,” I wrote, “leadership centers and institutes; programs, courses, workshops and seminars; teachings and trainings are dedicated to growing good leaders, not to addressing bad ones.”

While there are of course exceptions to this general rule – including some of my own work, in which bad leadership and followership have been through lines – it is widely acknowledged that the leadership industry’s focus remains heavily on leadership that is constructive as opposed to destructive. Which is curious given that the world in which we live really – as opposed to ideally – is replete with bad leadership of every type.*

So, why is it that we, ostensible experts in the field, distance ourselves from what is a plague on the human condition – bad leadership. To this question, in the article I provided four answers. Given Kamala Harris’s loss in her campaign for American president and given what the Washington Post heralded as Donald Trump’s “triumph,” I will focus in this post on one of these: “The Breaches Between Us.”

What do I mean by this? I mean that applying labels to leaders such as “good” and “bad” would be easy if we could agree on what these words meant and to whom they applied. But we do not and, it appears, we cannot. In other words, my bad leader might be your good one.

Trump is an obvious case in point. To some Americans he is riddled with personal deficits ranging from being a threat to democracy, to being a harasser and abuser, to being a chronic liar and even a convicted crook. To some Americans he is riddled with political deficits ranging from being a threat to women’s health, to surrounding himself with rightwing extremists and toadies, to cozying up to some of the world’s most dangerous dictators. And, to some Americans he is riddled with psychological deficits of which the most frequently mentioned is narcissism, extreme narcissism.

But as we know the morning after if not the day before, to some other Americans whatever Donald Trump’s deficits, they matter less than his strengths. What are his strengths? Personally, he is the anti-Kamala Harris. He is male; she is female. He is white; she is black. He is a law breaker; she is a law enforcer. He glowers a lot; she grins a lot. He conveys strength; she conveys conciliation. Politically he is more right-wing, and she is more left wing. Moreover, they differ on everything from taxes to tariffs; from abortion to immigration; from Ukraine to the Middle East. And psychologically they are opposites. His campaign reflected him: he emphasized damage and darkness, American carnage. Her campaign reflected her: she emphasized hope and joy, the future not the past.

Final point: American voters had as they usually do, a binary choice. They could select either Trump or Harris. Which meant they had to choose between one candidate they thought better and one they thought worse. But because this time around the two candidates were so dramatically different, to vote for one over the other meant strong feelings were involved. I have no doubt that Kamala Harris’s most dedicated supporters feel worse this morning than did the morning after Michael Dukakis’s most dedicated supporters. (In 1988 Dukakis lost his bid for the presidency to George H. W. Bush. But the differences between Dukakis and Bush were not nearly so stark as those between Harris and Trump.)

Because of these breaches between us – breaches that in recent years have become more fervent and fractious – leadership teachers, trainers, and, yes, scholars tend to steer clear. The academy especially prefers that we avoid rendering opinions and making judgments. That we avoid delicate and politically sensitive subjects. Who needs trouble?

Well, we do. If those of us in the leadership industry continue to refuse to engage the debate – what is good leadership and what is bad? – we will continue to fail at our most important task. Which is to make clear there is a distinction between right and wrong, between good and bad.

———————————————-

*In my book, Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters (Harvard Business School Press, 2004), I identify seven different types of bad leadership.  

          If the United States of America is the so-called leader of the so-called Free World, on the evidence of the 2024 presidential campaign you’d never know it. Despite the so-called world order being dangerously disordered, the subject of American foreign policy nearly never came up.

Oh sure, Donald Trump insisted that his personal ties to world leaders guaranteed he could end the wars in Europe and the Middle East simply by snapping his fingers. And oh sure, Kamala Harris squirmed seamlessly when pressed on how she weighed the interests of Palestinians versus those of Israelis. But there was no serious engagement in foreign policy issues at a moment of their utmost importance.

First, in the last few years relationships among America’s most problematic and potentially dangerous adversaries – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – have grown observably closer. Second, especially in the last half year Russian President Vladimir Putin has become stronger and more secure both at home and abroad. Third, the war in the Middle East, which so far shows no sign of abating, has weakened America domestically and internationally. Fourth, nuclear weapons are proliferating as are threats to employ them. Finally, American military officials estimate there are now between eleven and twelve thousand North Korean combat-ready soldiers stationed in Russia, some of whom have already engaged with Ukrainian troops.

If America’s political and military establishment had been told when Ukraine was initially attacked by Russia (in February 2022) that in less than three years troops from Asia would be fighting alongside Russians on European soil they would not have believed it. Oh, and did I mention that North Korea has one of the largest standing armies in the world? It is 1.3 million men and women strong!  

Everywhere in the world people are waiting to see who will win America’s presidential election. In recent weeks European leaders such as France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Olaf Scholz have been studiously silent on among key issues the changing balance of power in Ukraine. Though they know full well that even a small sliver of the North Korean army could threaten the balance of power on the entire European continent, once it came to pass they have been mute. Mute because until they know who will next occupy the White House they will know nothing.  

So, while we Americans have been obsessed with ourselves the rest of the world has either taken advantage of our navel gazing or is standing around waiting. It’s everywhere evident that though Americans would prefer it were otherwise, the next American president will have no choice. On the world stage she or he will be center stage.

In recent months has been a growing list of people warning about Donald Trump. Warning about who he is and what he would do if elected president a second time.

The list to which I specifically refer is not just any list. It is a special list composed of those who know him best because while he was president they worked alongside.

The reasons for their cautions range from Trump’s being a threat to democracy to his disdain for the truth to his being ill-informed and incurious. To say the warnings are singular in that they are unprecedented is evident. To say that based on everything we have long seen and repeatedly heard they have the ring of truth is equally evident. What is less evident is why given the experience and excellence of these Trump-dissidents the sound of their alarms has been muted. Rather than ringing through the land loud and clear they’ve been hard to hear.       

Who are they, these dissidents? Generals and admirals. National security advisers. Cabinet members. Trump’s vice president. They are Americans in the highest echelons of their leadership ranks and yet. And yet their voices have not carried, they have not broken through.   

Which is not to say they have had no impact whatsoever. Maybe, cumulatively, they made a modest difference. But they should have made more. We should have been shocked to the core when someone like retired U. S. Marine Corp General and former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said that Trump had “nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.” But we were not. Why not?

• Because Americans are inured to Donald Trump – nearly immune to who he is and what he says and does.
• Because Americans are anyway deeply divided.
• Because of all the chatter and clatter – all that clamor coming at Americans every day and night.  
• Because of when the criticisms were leveled. The harshest by far were leveled years after Trump left office. Too late.
• Because of how the criticisms were leveled. If you’re going to speak out think how best to be heard. Retired U. S. Army General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff including during the last two years of Trump’s presidency, told journalist Bob Woodward that Trump was a “fascist to the core.” Woodward then dutifully reported what Milley said. But Woodward channeling Milley is far less powerful, far less likely to resonate, than Milley saying whatever he has to say directly.

Today’s news cycle is a fierce and ferocious competition for attention. To break through you must speak very, very loudly, and very, very clearly, and very, very early. If you are too leery and too late there is no chance your voice will be heard as it should.

My site’s been down. So for the last couple of weeks I’ve been rendered mute. But no longer!

Logically, I should be posting about the presidential election which, for good reason, has Americans in a frenzy. However, precisely because of our fevered brow, it’s a good time to step back. To review a book about leadership written by the real thing – a leader.

———————————————————————–

It’s not often that a book about leadership is written by someone who really, really, really knows his stuff. This one then is an exception. Written by Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for ten years, the man is deeply experienced and unquestionably expert.

He does not disappoint. Blair’s book, On Leadership: Lessons for the 21^st Century is not great. But in an area – leadership – in which excellence is in embarrassingly short supply his book stands out as solid.

The book is more relevant to leaders in government than in business.  Moreover, while he tries to be current, Blair’s time as prime minister was 1997-2007. So, the context within which he governed was different from – it was far less fraught and furious – what it is today. To wit: Britain’s last prime minister, Rishi Sunak, lasted in office less than two years. And the incumbent, Keir Starmer, whose Labor Party won a landslide victory just last summer, already has approval ratings no better than dismal.

Blair’s model as a writer could have been Machiavelli. Not that Blair himself is Machiavellian. Rather it is that Blair, like his long-ago predecessor, set out to write a manual for leaders who are governors. Of the 40 short chapters many have titles indicating their instructions: “Be the Leader with the Plan;” and “Your First Duty: Keeping People Safe;” and “How to Negotiate.”

Ironically, the area in which Blair is the least competent is the one on which he spends the most time – technology. To his credit, he understands how technology has changed the dynamic between leaders and followers. In fact, there is a chapter on “Politics in the Era of Social Media” in which Blair acknowledges that “social media is a place where vitriol and venom are the sauce flavoring whatever opinion is being given vent to.” However, there was no social media during the decade that Blair was prime minister, which probably explains why in this area Blair seems more performative than highly knowledgeable.

Blair is at his best when he is most deeply human. First, when he is what he is at heart – an optimist during a time when pessimism about democracy prevails. Second, when he is being what he also is at heart – a seasoned wise man when wisdom about leadership is in equally short supply. 

What I admire most about this book is that it does what it sets out to do. To instruct about leadership seriously and purposefully. My own book, Professionalizing Leadership, is a lament about how we treat leadership as an occupation. We do not regard it as a profession or even as a vocation. Blair seems to share this view. He writes that governing is the one area of importance “in which a person with no qualifications, no track record, a CV devoid of content, can rise to a position of extraordinary power. In any other walk of life, we would consider such a circumstance unthinkable, ridiculous even…. But in politics this can happen.”

It is this deficiency that Tony Blair sets out to address. Which is why anyone with a personal, professional, or political interest in how to lead during a time when leading in democracies is so difficult, will find Blair’s book instructive and, as important, heartening.  

The Alpha Female

My last post was titled, “The Alpha Male.” I wrote it to provide another lens through which to look at a deeply flawed Republican candidate for president who, nevertheless, is more than holding his own against his Democratic opponent.

Which brings me to said opponent, Kamala Harris, whose recent trajectory is by now familiar. First overnight attention, then overweening affection, finally the grinding halt. For weeks, try as she might, she has been unable to make any headway.

The United States of America has this in common with almost every other country: it has never had a woman at the helm. No accident. Females are still seen as less leader-like – however defined – than their male counterparts. Which is primarily why still so few women at the top of the greasy pole – in business as in government, in the military as in the media, everywhere.  

Alpha males are seen as leaders in all great ape groups, including humans. Why? Because they are more readily seen as strong and strong-willed, as forceful and successful. On a largely though not entirely unconscious level, it is men much more than women who are seen as powerful – powerful enough to protect us from our enemies from without and, according to Trump, from within.

Wonder why he is concluding his campaign by demonizing immigrants? Because it enables him to be the hero who will save us. From whom? From the menacing and even murderous outsiders who became – under President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris – insiders.

Harris on the other hand is being pushed by Democratic sage James Carville to toughen up, to dominate her space, to depict herself not as a purveyor of joy but as an alpha female. He warns she needs to be “more aggressive.” He worries she lacks a “killer instinct.” He admonishes her to “hit hard – pronto.”  He cautions she must, absolutely must, “scare the crap out of voters.”

No accident that the few women who have risen to the top of the national heap, and who in many ways shone in their leadership roles, were seen as exceptionally strong. Britain’s prime minister Margaret Thatcher was famously known as the “Iron Lady.” India’s prime minister, Indira Gandhi, was also called an Iron Lady, in this case by Henry Kissinger. Prime Minster Golda Meir was similarly dubbed, she was called “the Iron Lady of Israel.”  Meanwhile Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, had a different sort of moniker, “Mutti Merkel.” Mother Merkel. But it too suggests a certain fierceness, in this case a mother who will do what she must to protect those for whom she is responsible.

We know by now that if women come across as being too strong it turns men off – and many women as well. Which is why threading the needle between being seen as too strong on the one hand and too weak on the other is so daunting a task. But it is not impossible. Thatcher was prime minister for over ten years. Gandhi was prime minister for almost fifteen years. Meir was prime minister for five years. Merkel was chancellor for more than fifteen years. Which suggests that once the right woman has the keys to the kingdom, she’s got a shot at transforming it, for some time to come, into a queendom.  

But she’s got to get there first. Which she will never do if she grins too much and glowers too little.

I’ll keep this short and simple. I’m keeping it simple by omitting from the discussion differences between the genders. And I’m keeping it short by limiting the discussion to a few comments buttressed by a few quotes.

Since Donald Trump burst onto the political scene nearly a decade ago, experts have continued to scratch their heads. How can a man so characterologically, psychologically, and intellectually deficient so strongly appeal to approximately half the American electorate?

To this question have been countless answers. One however has been largely or maybe even entirely absent. Trump is an alpha male.  Even at his now advanced age he still looks like one, lumbers like one, and speaks like one. All that sound and fury spewing from his mouth is, I hate to break it to you, evocative of an alpha male.

So, why does this matter? Why would we be attracted to an alpha male so lacking in apparent virtues, especially in comparison with someone who is not an alpha male but who on paper at least is more qualified to lead?    

Because we – we humans – are one of the great apes. Being a great ape does not mean that we are exactly like other great apes. But it does mean that we have some things in common. Such as longing to be led by someone who seems strong.

Our relatives include chimpanzees, to whom we humans, because we share a common ancestor, are closest. We share nearly 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, which means that our genetic makeup is nearly identical. It cannot be, then, that the similarities stop there. That they are merely technical, without consequences for how they and we behave.

Humans are like chimpanzees (and countless other creatures) in that we, like they are social. We live in groups. Unlike humans who usually live in large groups, chimpanzees live in small groups of perhaps 20 to 50. Notwithstanding their small size, chimpanzee groups are like human groups in that they are organized hierarchically. Some chimps rank higher than others, while one, the leader, nearly invariably is an alpha male who ranks highest and rules the rest.

Historian Yuval Noah Harari: “The dominant member [of the chimpanzee group] who is almost always a male, is termed the alpha male. Other males and females exhibit their submission to the alpha male by bowing before him while making grunting sounds, not unlike human subjects bowing before a king.”*

Primatologist Frans de Waal: “[Among chimpanzees] the alpha male makes an impressive display… hitting anyone who doesn’t move out of the way in time. The display both draws attention to the male and impresses his audience…. Dominant males seem to keep track of [their underlings] because during their next round of display they sometimes single out parties who failed to acknowledge them for ‘special treatment’ to make sure that next time they won’t forget to greet.”**

Even assuming only slight similarities between chimpanzees and humans, among both great ape groups alpha males have forever been familiar figures. I’m not arguing that looking at Trump through the lens of a primatologist is the only way to understand his remarkable, and remarkably enduring political appeal. I am arguing that to exclude the primatologist’s perspective is to exclude an explanation of major not minor importance.

——————————————————————————–

*From his book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, p. 25.  

**From his book, Our Inner Ape, pp. 57, 58.

Winston Churchill believed in summits. In gatherings where one world leader would meet, face to face, with another world leader so they could come to know each other at least slightly, and get some work done. He thought it could not hurt the mightiest of men (yes, then all men) to share the same space, talk across the same table, eat the same food and drink the same drink, and maybe take a walk through the same thick wood.

Churchill:.

Conferences on the highest level… not overhung by a ponderous or rigid agenda, or led into mazes or jungles of technical details, zealously contested by hordes of experts and officials drawn up in a vast cumbrous array. These conferences should be confined to the smallest number of powers… and meet with a measure of informality and still greater privacy and seclusion.

Not long ago the leaders of the world’s two most powerful countries, who happened also to be the most implacable of enemies – the United States and the Soviet Union – met face to face usually for several days at a time on a reasonably regular basis.

• President John F. Kennedy and his Soviet counterpart, Nikita Khrushchev, met in Vienna in 1961.
• President Lyndon Johnson and his Soviet counterpart, Alexei Kosygin, met in Glassboro (New Jersey) in 1967.
• President Richard Nixon and his Soviet counterpart, Leonid Brezhnev, met in Moscow in 1972.
• President Richard Nixon and his Soviet counterpart, Leonid Brezhnev, met in Washington in 1973.
• President Richard Nixon and his Soviet counterpart, Leonid Brezhnev, met in Moscow in 1974.
• President Gerald Ford and his Soviet counterpart, Leonid Brezhnev, met in Vladivostok in 1974.
• President Jimmy Carter and his Soviet counterpart, Leonid Brezhnev, met in Vienna in 1979.
• President Ronald Reagan and his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, met in Geneva in 1985.
• President Ronald Reagan and his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, met in Reykjavik in 1986.
• President Ronald Reagan and his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, met in Washington in 1987.  

Agreed: the world was simpler then. It was bipolar. Because, for decades after the Second World War, only the United States and the Soviet Union seemed much to matter, every other country in the world was background, not foreground. Moreover, hope still flickered for the United Nations. Then unlike now it was considered a potential forum for conflict resolution and peacekeeping.

Now though the world is more complicated. It’s not bipolar, it’s multipolar. Moreover, to add to the confusion and complexity are nonstate actors such as, to take obvious recent examples, Hamas and Hezbollah. As to international institutions – most obviously again the United Nations – in general they fail at their most important task. The UN commons is no match for single leaders who are strong and strong willed.

Which returns us to summits as a venue for diplomacy which, however, for decades has been sidelined. Essentially are two kinds. One is a summit between and among national leaders who are friends. These are easy. The other is a summit between and among national leaders who are foes. These are less easy; in fact, they are fraught.

Which is precisely why the comparison between then and now is so striking. Nixon met with his supposed archenemy, Brezhnev, three times. (Had Nixon not been forced to resign it would almost certainly have been more.) And Reagan met with his supposed archenemy, Gorbachev, also three times. Moreover, by their last get together, they were, if not friends, then downright friendly!

Contrast Nixon and Brezhnev and Reagan and Gorbachev with Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin. As presidents the latter met just once – in 2021, in Geneva – when they were together for a total of three and a half hours. Similarly, Biden has met with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, only twice. The two men were in the same place at the same time in November 2022, though only as part of a larger summit. And they met again a year later – on a single day for all of four hours.

Summits such as Biden’s with Putin and Xi are the antitheses of what Churchill had in mind – informal, leisurely meetings held in private, where two or perhaps a few more world leaders would have several days to get to know each other on a more personal level, unencumbered by “hordes of experts and officials drawn up in a vast cumbrous array.”

It’s easy now to fly from one point on the planet to another. Why then has the president of the United States not met more often with the presidents of Russia and China?  Why do leaders of today’s world powers fail to take advantage of every available avenue for international diplomacy? What are they afraid of? Do they personally and, or politically thrive on the hostility between them?

I am not suggesting that summits between or among declared enemies or even fierce competitors are a cure for what ails us. I am saying is that their effective exclusion from our diplomatic arsenal has been a loss. Churchill was many things. But a fool he was not.

One more thing. Russia and China have never been closer than they are now. Is it because Putin and Xi have met 42 times since Xi came to power in 2012? Let’s just say that meeting face-to-face, repeatedly, over several days, didn’t hurt!

It’s tempting to write the obvious. That liberal leaders are having a hard time because of the two evil “I’s” – inflation and immigration. Nor do I want to dismiss their importance. Inflation has forever signaled danger to anyone in power. And for the last decade immigration has been a hot button issue not just in the United States but in most of Europe and now also in Canada.

But to understand the level of our discontent it will not suffice to look just at a few problems, no matter how major. Or for that matter to look just at those at the top. For the answer to the questions of what’s going on – and why – rests primarily not with leaders but with their followers. It is we who are changing – those of us without power and authority not those with.

Look at this lousy week – specifically for liberal leaders:

• In Austria the hard right had a great night. The Kremlin friendly Freedom Party scored its strongest showing since its inception at the end of the Second World War … by former Nazi functionaries and SS officers. The Freedom Party scored over 29% of the vote.
• In France it’s now evident that the power of French President Emannuel Macron has been curbed. Effectively forced in recent weeks to appoint a prime minister who is well to his right, Macron’s control over the levers of government is perceptively less than previously.
• Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – who has held office since 2015 – is running again. But he’s got some problems. Members of his own Liberal Party are ditching him. Canada is struggling with high inflation, soaring housing costs, and a weakened health care system. Most importantly, his poll numbers are dismal. More than 70 percent of Canadians say their country is “broken” under his leadership.    
• Kier Starmer is still wet behind the ears. He’s only been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since July. But already one of his own – a member of his own Liberal Party – has unceremoniously ditched him. Two days ago, one Rosie Duffield loudly quit the party charging it, and by extension him, are all about “greed and power.” Seems among the issues is evidence that Starmer and other top Cabinet officials accepted lavish gifts from donors. Not a good look for a chap just starting out.
• Back on campus Brandeis University announced that its president of eight years, Ronald Liebowitz, would not only step down but do so in the middle of the academic year (November 1^st). This followed a debasing vote of no confidence in the president by the faculty, which accused him of “damaging errors in judgment and poor leadership.”
• Not far behind is the president of Rutgers University, Jonathan Holloway, who, however, is leaving only next June and then of his own free volition. Why then is he quitting? Because he’s had it. As he put it to a reporter, “It’s a punishing job in normal times…. But the standards we’re [now] being held to are impossible. I had to ask myself, ‘What is it I want to do, how can I do it, and is this the right position?’”  

So, what’s going on here? Is it just chance that liberal leaders everywhere are struggling? To wit in the United States, where the Democratic candidate for president is barely holding her own against her Republican opponent who is, among his numberless deficits, a crypto fascist?

In a book I wrote over a decade ago I warned of the trend. It’s not just about those at the top or even the times in which we live. It’s about what anyway has been the historical trajectory. A trajectory in which has been an exceptional expansion of political rights. It is this that explains why liberal leaders have been weakened – and their followers strengthened. As I wrote in the book, tellingly titled, The End of Leadership:  

A note about the title: it is meant as a caution about the future of leadership in the twenty-first century. For nearly everywhere leaders are found wanting, followers are restive, and the context is changing – sometimes at warp speed. So, unless we get a grip, the prognosis [for liberal leadership] is grim.

 About this, alas, I see no reason to change my mind.