Blog

When national leaders run into trouble at home they sometimes look abroad. They look beyond their own border for an opportunity to restore their tattered reputation.

This is not to say they necessarily fabricate these opportunities. Not at all. Winston Churchill did it and with, to understate it, good reason.  He was a marginalized member of parliament in the mid-1930s when he started regularly to call out Adolf Hitler. To warn his British brethren that Hitler was going to pose an unparalleled threat not just to Great Britain but to all Europe.

For his troubles Churchill continued to be marginalized – and his warnings ignored – until he wasn’t. Until 1939 when Germany invaded Poland and Churchill was seen, almost overnight, as the only leader who might save Britain from defeat at the hands of the Nazis.

To compare Winston Churchill taking a stand against Adolf Hitler to Boris Johnson taking a stand against Vladimir Putin might seem silly. But not so fast. Depends on how you look at it.

Johnson has had a hard time of it almost since he became prime minister. He was forced by circumstance to deal with Brexit and Covid, and with a sharply shrinking economy, and with the first major war on European soil since the end of World War II.  

He also ran into trouble of his own making – the scandal known to all in the know as “Partygate.” This was of course a self-inflicted wound. Johnson bringing on himself the wrath of his constituents for permitting and, sometimes, participating in, partying at 10 Downing Street while the rest of the United Kingdom was banned (during the pandemic) even from seeing family and friends.

So, what might a leader in Johnson’s position do? Of course, look abroad. Which is precisely what Prime Minister Boris Johnson is doing and has done for months. He has been at the forefront of European leaders supporting – by word and deed – Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. Johnson has visited Kyiv twice. Johnson has provided Ukraine with extensive military support and is promising more. Johnson has promised other kinds of help such as training tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers. Johnson has explored with Zelensky how to end or circumvent Russia’s Black Sea naval blockade, which is precluding the export of massive amounts of grain to places that desperately need it. And Johnson has promised to do everything in his power to “expel the aggressor from Ukraine.”

Given his unpopularity at home, even among members of his own party, small wonder that Johnson has looked elsewhere for love. And small wonder that he found it in Ukraine where Zelensky is obviously grateful for all his attention and support, and where the people regard him, according to the New York Times, as “something of a folk hero.”

Still, the fact that Johnson is a leader in search of a cause and a constituency, does not mean he necessarily is misguided. It’s possible if not probable that on this issue – defending Ukraine against Russia’s unprovoked, criminal aggression – he, more than any other single Western leader, is on the right side of history.    

When a leader with great power says something, followers should listen. When the leader with great power is evil, followers should listen carefully.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is a leader with great power who, by my definition, is evil. Specifically, he readily inflicts pain on large numbers of others, both psychological and physical.

He is also a leader who trumpets what he does – in advance. He does so in deed and in word.  Putin’s War, his invasion of Ukraine, was heralded by a whole host of assaults, initiatives over a period of at least 15 years that by any measure were aggressive. So, if the West was surprised when he invaded Ukraine, it wasn’t paying attention.

Similarly, what Putin says. He has not been shy about hiding his intentions or illusions, which is precisely why what he said last week should be seen as a threat. Yet another shot across the bow.

At a recent event commemorating the 350^th anniversary of the birth of Peter the Great, Putin compared himself to the legendary Russian czar, who was known for, among other things, his relentless expansion of the Russian empire.  “What was [Peter] doing during the Great Northern War?” Putin asked aloud. “He was taking back and reinforcing. That’s what he did. And it looks like it fell on us to take back and reinforce as well.”  (Peter’s land grab was from Sweden; the Great Northern War went on for 21 years.)

Putin has long-lionized Peter, who ruled Russia from 1682 to 1725. (He keeps a bronze statue of Peter over his desk in the Kremlin’s cabinet room.) Trouble is that Putin idolizes only part of Peter. The Peter that is the warmonger and territorial aggrandizer. He has no interest in the other part of Peter, that is, the Peter who was great because he was as interested in culture, education, and religion as in aggression. The Peter who leaned toward Europe, not away from it. Putin, in short, admires only those parts of Peter that to the West are the least attractive, most offensive, and most dangerous.   

By most measures, the West, NATO, has been helpful to Ukraine as it has tried, valiantly, to fight Russian aggression. But, by most measures, the West, NATO, has not been very helpful to Ukraine – certainly not as helpful as it could be. It has taken several measures off the table (for example, sending in ground troops). Its delivery of weapons and weapons systems to the beleaguered nation has been relatively niggardly and notably sluggish. And sanctions have had some effect, but not nearly enough in large part because of Europe’s (and India’s, and China’s) continuing demand for gas and oil.   

Whatever happens in Ukraine, to Ukraine, the West has been forewarned. By comparing himself to Peter the Great, Vladimir the Great has made unambiguously clear that he is prepared to fight to the finish. Ukraine will lose this war, Europe will lose this war, the West will lose this war, unless it reads Putin loud and clear. Which is to say unless it decides it will do what it takes to defeat this latest in the line of Russian czars.

Twice before I’ve written about Representative Liz Cheney. (Links below.) She is that singular a leader, that fascinating a figure. In the first of the two posts, I focused on her exceptional lineage. Not just her illustrious father, but her pathbreaking mother. In the second, I emphasized her no-nonsense style, a striking contrast to another Elizabeth prominent at that moment, Elizabeth Holmes. 

In this third piece I address her daring and determination. Though she stands nearly alone among Republicans, Liz Cheney is breathtakingly eager to slay the dragon, who happens also to be a Republican. Moreover, the fearlessness and the audaciousness with which she is leading the charge against Former President Donald Trump is reminiscent of nothing so much as a mythical figure, a dragon slayer, who struggled against the monster, alone.

In doing what’s she’s doing Cheney’s risks are real and they are considerable.

• Marginalization, defamation, and elimination in her home state, Wyoming, where she faces an uphill fight for reelection in November.
• Marginalization, defamation, and demotion in her party. (A year ago, in punishment for her opposition to Trump, House Republicans stripped her of her leadership role.)
• Marginalization, defamation, and demotion in the chamber in which she serves.
• Marginalization and defamation that crosses from the professional and political into the personal.
• Marginalization and defamation by certain segments of the American public, especially those on the far right.
• Marginalization and defamation by media such as Fox News and social media.

Have these various threats to her well-being in any way intimidated Cheney? Not so far as I can tell. Hard to imagine she could be any fiercer or more determined a political opponent.

Perhaps the best indicator of her combativeness and tenaciousness is the scope of her attack. For it appears Liz Cheney will not be content to slay a single dragon – the 800-pound dragon. She’s after the whole herd! Her prey includes any Republican, nearly all Republicans, who in the face of the overwhelming evidence that Trump is completely corrupt and somewhat crazy is still staying loyal. Loyal to a leader who by no conceivable measure should ever again hold public office – or even a smidgeon of political power.      

We have known for some time that by attacking Trump with all the personal, political, and legal resources at her disposal, Representative Cheney was alienating herself from her party. What we did not know until last week was that the party itself was in her sights. Especially Trump’s toadies, sycophants, and enablers. She is taking on the lot of them, warning them that, “There will come a day when President Trump is gone. But your dishonor will remain.”

Tough talk not from a dragon slayer – from a dragons slayer.

https://barbarakellerman.com/leader-mother-lynne-cheney/

For over a year now erstwhile enablers of former President Donald Trump have tried to save themselves. Save themselves from the judgement of history.

There’s been a slew of them – Trump toadies who while he was president went along with everything he said and did. Only recently to come out of the cold to turn on him and, or, to justify their behavior.

In my book, The Enablers: How Team Trump Flunked the Pandemic and Failed America, I define enablers as “followers who allow or even encourage their leaders to engage in, and then to persist in, behaviors that are destructive.” Additionally, I name names. The book has a large cast of characters, men and women who performed the part of enabler to a fault. Literally.

Most of Trump’s enablers have stayed silent. Maybe because they remain true believers. Maybe because they fear his wrath. Or maybe because they think they’re better off shutting up and leaving the national stage.   

But some of Trump’s enablers have sought to redeem themselves. They have tried publicly to justify why they served a leader who so obviously was bad.  Misguided and malignant, and completely corrupt.

Former Attorney General William Barr, for instance, wrote a book titled, One Damn Thing After Another. In his memoir cum self-serving case for the defense Barr describes himself as serving not just Trump but also the American people. How exactly? Because he took on militant secularists, left-wing agitators, and members of the “Maoist left.” Barr moreover went further. In his zeal to rehabilitate his reputation he testified for public consumption that Trump’s claims of election fraud were “bullshit.”

Ivanka Trump, the fabled first daughter, has also backtracked, in public. In The Enablers I describe Ivanka as the one person on planet earth who seemed, on occasion, to reach President Trump. He adored her. First and foremost, her beauty. But he also “extolled how she behaved and what she accomplished and thought her future limitless.” He called Ivanka “Baby” in official meetings, described her as “unique,” and insisted that if she ever ran for president, “she’d be very, very hard to beat.’” In return, Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, were among President Trump’s most loyal allies and advisors, members not only of his family but of his inner circle. Still, when it came her turn to testify about Trump’s Big Lie, that he won not lost the 2020 presidential election, she did. Her voice was faint, and her words brief, but she said for the record that she believed William Barr, that her father’s claims of election fraud were “nonsense.” Why did Ivanka Trump turn on Donald Trump? To create distance between her and her father – to rehabilitate herself.  

Final case in point (here) of an enabler seeking to be saved, Dr. Deborah Birx.  After Trump was out of the White House Birx wrote a book, Silent Invasion, that centered on her role as Coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. She, and Doctors Anthony Fauci and Robert Redfield were Trump’s main medical advisors during his last year in office, which coincided with the first year of the Covid crisis. In Silent Invasion Birx describes her White House tenure as excruciating.  Still, she stayed, apparently reasoning that leaving her post would be more hurtful than helpful. “I am not a quitter,” she wrote in her book. It was what one reviewer called “one of her many self-testimonials with which she bolsters herself throughout the book.” Bolsters herself because she wants to justify herself. Too late though. Before 2020 was over Birx’s credibility was shot. As I wrote in The Enablers, her willingness “to forgive her boss his numberless lies,” and her readiness to “heap on her boss the flattery he craved,” makes her redemption impossible.

No one can ever undo what was done.  An enabler who enabled a very, very bad leader can never be saved. Redeemed perhaps, but not saved.    

Seems all Great Britain and large swaths of the Commonwealth are turning themselves inside out. All to honor, to celebrate over a four-day period, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II, who has sat on the throne 70 years.   

But what exactly is she, this long-lived and long-reigning Queen? Is she a leader? Or a figurehead? Or a symbol of something, maybe a people, or a country, or a memory of times past when Britain was an empire, a great empire, that at its peak ruled 25 % of the earth’s surface and all the world’s waves.    

Thing is she might be a figurehead, and she might be a symbol. And for that matter she might be, merely, a celebrity. But she is not just any one of these. She is not just even all of them. She is also a leader. She is a leader who has great throngs of followers, many of whom are strongly tied to her emotionally, psychologically, arguably even spiritually.

For of all the different kinds of leaders, the Queen most closely resembles a religious one. She has remained remote, almost other worldly. She has been private and, especially given the length of her time in public life, said little. She has never issued an order or initiated an obviously new idea. She has never seemed to want to run anything or manage anyone. Moreover, she has never tried in any obvious way to exercise any power, or even in any perceptible way to exert any influence. Mostly she just was, still is.

Elizabeth II does occupy a position of authority. That’s evident in the pomp and circumstance; in the crowns that sit sometimes on her head; in the multiple castles she owns and in which she continues still to dwell. But compared with times past her authority is greatly diminished. Older generations might still be intimidated or impressed by the Queen’s position, but younger ones mostly are not. They are waving flags this weekend not because of Elizabeth’s position but because of her persona.

When she dies there will be genuine mourning. To many members of the British public her death will feel personal. But her loss will be more than that. For the Queen has been source of stability – in Great Britain, but not only in Great Britain – that in this day and age will be difficult, maybe even impossible ever to replace.      

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine is now more than three months old. Seems to me the romance of it is over. War is never, of course, romantic. Like all wars the war in Ukraine has been deadly and cruel, destructive and disruptive. Still, the narrative associated with it, has had, as many wars do, an element that was romantic.

The romance in this case was on two levels. First, on a general level Americans especially saw the war as Ukrainians willing to fight to the death for the ideals Americans hold most dear. (At least in theory.) Ideals such as freedom and independence. Second, more specifically Americans have been in love with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. We have embraced the short, cute, onetime comic actor as the greatest wartime leader since Winston Churchill.

To be fair, Zelensky has done a remarkably good job. He has played what certainly seemed a miserably weak hand brilliantly well. Moreover, he has been preternaturally effective not only within Ukraine but without, tailoring his message to his various audiences, convincing people from Israel to Italy that he is a leader for all seasons. And … persuading them that Ukraine, Ukraine alone, is what stands between them and the Russian bear.       

In the first couple of months of the war this narrative felt good. It felt especially good because it was buttressed by events on the ground, by Ukraine’s readiness, willingness, and effectiveness at pushing Russian troops away from the capital, Kyiv, back to the eastern front. But now, on the eastern front, things are different. The news out of Ukraine is far grimmer than it was earlier in the war. The Russians are now advancing, and the Ukrainians are now not only retreating but suffering the heavy costs and casualties that all along likely were inevitable. After all, whatever its weaknesses, Russia’s military is among the largest in the world.

Russia expert Stephen Sestanovich is a realist who this week took note of the obvious. “Russia occupies much of Ukraine,” he wrote. Look at a map, he tells us! “Yes, Russia’s armed forces have suffered some major setbacks…. But the territory Russia has [already] seized is roughly four times larger than the two separatist regions it controlled in eastern Ukraine when the war started.”  (Italics mine.) Put directly, Russia did badly early in the war and, as a result, it changed course. Now Russia is doing well, quite well, in fact, all the while laying waste to large swaths of eastern Ukraine.   

The war has crystallized into a contest between two leaders, Putin and Zelensky. For both it’s figuratively if not literally a fight to the death. Nothing romantic about that.

Though Beto O’Rourke, former Democratic Congressman from the state of Texas, currently has no formal power or authority, he does have influence. He caused quite a stir yesterday when in the wake of the mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, he interrupted a press conference held by the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott. (O’Rourke is Abbott’s challenger in this year’s gubernatorial election.)

While the militantly pro-gun governor was center stage along with a string of his allies, O’Rourke stood up in front of the auditorium and interrupted the proceedings. The killings of 19 children in Uvalde and 2 adults were the “totally predictable” results of lax or even non-existent gun laws, he shouted, obviously gearing up to shout some more.   

No question O’Rourke was being disruptive. But judging from the response he got, you’d have thought he was the one who pulled a gun. Within seconds one official told him to “shut up.” Another said he was an “embarrassment.” And yes, a third charged he was “a sick son of a bitch.” Without missing another beat security guards either pushed or pulled O’Rourke out of the room, though not before he could yell for everyone to hear, “Somebody needs to stand up for the children of this state, or they will be killed.”

By a very large margin the American people want more laws controlling more guns. It’s been this way for years – on this issue as on others a small minority controlling the large majority.

What is to be done? Given the systemic problems – problems such as two senators from every state, no matter the size of the population; and the electoral college; and lifetime tenure for supreme court justices; and a constitution we treat like holy scripture – that bedevil 21^st century America the answer seems more elusive than ever.  

But… history teaches that when a small minority oppresses a large majority, and when it continues to do so for years, despite polite resistance, time might be right for resistance that is less polite. For resistance that is disruptive. Truth is disruption is sometimes the only way to shake up a system so deeply entrenched it is otherwise impervious to change.   

Before Nelson Mandela was sent to prison for 27 years, he was given permission to speak in the courtroom. What he did, he said, was not impetuous. He did it only after “calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.”  

I do not suggest the United States in 2022 is South Africa in 1964. Or that Beto O’Rourke is Nelson Mandela. What I do suggest is that when the will of the minority continues indefinitely to defy the will of the majority the time for polite chit-chat might be over. For all its virtues, civil discourse has its limitations. There are times when what is called for is disruption of politics as usual.      

OK, I admit it. It seems I have a modest fixation on the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon. I’m not sure why really. Probably because he’s often in the news which, in turn, makes him an obvious symbol of leadership in corporate America – and, for me, an easy target.

I’m reluctant further to feed my “modest fixation.” But obviously I’m not so reluctant as to deny myself another opportunity to point out what’s so wrong about leaders in Big Business.  

• Since 1978 CEO pay increased 1,322%. This in contrast to the average American worker whose pay over the same period increased 18%.
• CEOs now get paid 254 times more than their workers.

People have been pointing to the problem – the obscene inequity in income and wealth between those at the top and those in the middle and at the bottom – for years. But nothing has been done about it.  Each year it only gets worse.

Last week though was slightly, very slightly different. JPMorgan’s CEO got slapped for being greedy by his shareholders. And JPMorgan’s board got slapped for being timorous by its shareholders. Alas, the shareholder vote was nonbinding. Still, a mere 31% of investors supported the board’s pay plan. Specifically, most shareholders voted against giving Jamie Dimon a “special award.” What was this “special award”? A bonus of $52.6 million – in addition obviously to his usual humungous pay package.

Ironically, the board supported Dimon’s “special award” in a miserably misguided effort to keep Dimon in place – Dimon who has already been in place since 2005! How nutty can you get? What is the board afraid of? Fresh blood? A new pair of eyes and ears? Change of any kind? Or is the bank so fragile the board is worried that without their man at the helm it will collapse?

The shareholder vote is an insult to the board and a humiliation to Dimon who, by the way, is already worth over a billion dollars. What’s with these guys? Leaders like Dimon have a lust for money and for power – which means they’ll never change on their own and they’ll hold on so long as they can. This means is that unless and until the system changes, it’s up to members of corporate boards – who presumably are not automatons – to rein in their executives. And to stop paying them increasingly obscene amounts of money year after year after year.

Elon Musk.

The Hungarian-born American investor and financier George Soros was one of the main characters in a book I recently wrote with Todd Pittinsky, Leaders Who Lust: Power, Money, Sex, Success, Legitimacy, Legacy.

We defined lust as a “psychological drive that produces intense wanting, even desperately needing to obtain an object or to secure a circumstance. When the object has been obtained, or the circumstance secured, there is relief, but only briefly, temporarily.” Lust is, in other words, like an addiction, it is never ending. Leaders who lust for legacy specifically “long, effectively lifelong, to leave an imprint that is permanent.”

Which has been the case with George Soros. For whatever combination of subjective (personal/psychological) and objective (contextual/situational) reasons, all his adult life he has wanted, more than anything else, to leave his mark on history. First, European history and politics, second American history and politics. To this end he has funneled vast amounts of his vast fortune to various liberal causes, abroad and more recently, at home.

Soros is a Jew who as a boy barely escaped the Nazis. So it was especially sad to see right-wing Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban target Soros less even for his liberal ideas than for his being a Jew. In his 2018 campaign for reelection Orban campaigned as if Soros was his opponent. Orban promoted the “anti-Semitic imagery of powerful Jewish financiers scheming to control the world,” and had “thousands of posters” plastered all over Budapest picturing a ”grinning Soros with the slogan, ‘Let’s not allow Soros to have the last laugh.’” *  

For an American though it is one thing to see Soros targeted in Hungary for being a Jew. It is quite another to see him targeted in the United States for being a Jew! The first is bad, the second is worse. Has my beloved country come to this? Well, yes. It has.

In the last two days:

• We learned that the 18-year-old arrested for the mass shooting in Buffalo posted a long manifesto in which, among other things, he attacked “elitists and globalists,” spewed virulent anti-Semitism, and singled out Soros for his “funding of the radical left.”
• We learned that the Republican candidate for secretary of state in Minnesota graphically depicted (in a video) the Jewish Democratic incumbent, along with a Jewish elections lawyer, as puppets on strings manipulated by, you guessed it, again a grinning George Soros.  

At age 91 Soros is toward the end of his long life, a life generally very well lived. He has been endlessly passionate about making the world a better place, and endlessly generous in his willingness to put his money where his mouth is. In the main, Soros has been a good leader, not a bad one. He does not deserve to be stigmatized, victimized, by that old trope, the terminally greedy, endlessly money-hungry Jew.  But, then, no one does.

My beloved country? Cry, My Beloved Country.

————————————————————

*Leaders Who Lust, p. 202.