Category: Digital Article

In September the University of Toronto Press will publish my next book. It’s titled Why We Follow Leaders – and Why We Don’t. These are the four questions to which the book provides answers. First, what are the rewards for following? Second, what are the punishments for not following? Third, what are the rewards for not following? Fourth, what are the punishments for following?

                                                               *

This post is to the point. It’s about what happened in this week’s Indiana Republican primary.

In the last year the propensity of Congressional Republicans to religiously follow wherever Donald Trump led became even curiouser and curiouser. The president’s approval ratings sank. His war with Iran proved highly unpopular. Prices rose, most visibly at the pump. Trump (and his family) pocketed billions while many millions of Americans financially struggled. And his proclivity to glitzy self-aggrandizement reached new highs.   

Notwithstanding all of this, what became clear in Indiana is that Trump continues to control the Republican party. He continues to dominate both Republicans who are in office and Republicans who aspire to do the same. His penchant for revenge was why he backed primary challengers against all seven of the incumbent Republican state senators who had rejected Trump’s redistricting plan. The result? At least five of Trump’s toadies won.

The details of their wins – including an avalanche of cash – do not concern us here. What does concern us is how it happens that a leader so clearly flawed can control followers hellbent on not crossing him because they are hellbent on not being punished. In fact, they are hellbent on being rewarded, on securing the president’s blessing.  It all goes back to the voters, of course, to Trump’s MAGA base. This base is smaller than it used to be. But notwithstanding withering criticisms of the president by some MAGA elites, even now his base remains a potent political force that all Americans have to reckon with.

Republicans who hold political office are like Democrats who hold political office. They reap a range of rewards that include but are not limited to power, status and money. So, even in an environment as politically fraught as this one, holding political office remains an attractive or even very attractive professional option. Which is why Republic incumbents and aspirants continue to shill for a leader who, however problematic, still holds the cards. Donald Trump makes it plain that he will reward those who follow him and punish those who do not – which, whatever has gone down, he still has the power to do.

My post of two days ago was a response to Haig Patapan’s new book, The Modern Tyrant. While the book is very good, I took issue with the fact that Patapan skirts, so to speak, the gender issue. That he takes it as a given that a tyrant is a man – a “he” not a “she.”

I do not argue that this is wrong. I argue that we cannot or at least we should not make this assumption without discussion.  

For the purposes of this post, I accept the point. I accept that nearly all modern tyrants are men. Further, nearly all tyrants have always been men. Which inevitably raises the question of why. Why is it that some men tend to be tyrannical while hardly any women tend to be same – even when, as they occasionally are, in leadership roles? Is it that men, generally the physically stronger of our species, have historically been more able to be all-controlling? Or is it that men want it more than women? Want more fervently and frequently than women not merely to exercise power but to exercise total power over near everyone and everything.

Suffice here – this is a post not a book – to say that any attempt to answer questions about gender differences as they pertain to leadership and followership must begin with, and maybe even end with, the fact that we, we humans, are great apes. We humans are great apes who are extremely closely related to two other species of great apes: chimpanzees and bonobos. We three share a common ancestor as well as more than 96 percent of our DNA.

All well and good – though in a discussion about power the similarities and differences among the three species of great apes can be said to raise as many questions as give answers.  For chimpanzees are known, like humans, to be aggressive. Moreover, it is the male of the species who is nearly always the aggressor both within chimpanzee groups and without. Bonobos, in contrast, are far less aggressive. They don’t generally engage in warfare, and they don’t generally intentionally kill each other. Further, and to the point that I make here, unlike chimpanzees among whom males dominate, among bonobos it is females who typically reign supreme.

So, when males dominate aggression, especially but not exclusively physical aggression, is a predictable byproduct. In contrast, when females dominate, physical aggression is far less frequent. Therefore, while among bonobos there are instances in which dominant females form coalitions, particularly against problematic males, bonobos tend naturally toward more peaceable conflict resolution than chimpanzees. Which is to say that compared with chimpanzee leaders (who are males), bonobo leaders (who are females), are less naturally disposed to leading by exercising power and more naturally disposed to leading by exercising authority and influence.

Which returns us to humans. Humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos. Which means that we bear similarities to both species. However, when it comes to leadership and followership, a cursory look suggests that our resemblances to chimpanzees are significantly greater than to bonobos. Overwhelmingly our leaders are as they have always been – men not women. Which goes a long way toward explaining why overwhelmingly the modern tyrant is as tyrants have always been – men not women.

Several months ago, I was asked to endorse a book written by a colleague of mine, Haig Patapan. The book is titled: The Modern Tyrant: Authoritarian Leadership in Theory and Practice.

Patapan is Professor of Political Science at Australia’s Griffith University. Without hesitating I said yes to the publisher’s request, knowing that Patapan is a first-rate scholar and that most of what interests him interests me.* He, like me, writes about leadership; and he, like me, is interdisciplinary. Patapan tends to weave the classics through what he writes, for example, in this book he references Plato and Aristotle, religion and rhetoric. As I thought I would be, after reading The Modern Tyrant, I was glad to provide the blurb – a highly enthusiastic one.

I would do so again. But it is also true that since my initial reading of the book, I’ve become more sensitive to the fact that Patapan omitted from his discussion any substantive reference to gender. Throughout his book he assumes that tyrants are men and he refers to them as “he.” Patapan does address the gender issue – though only in a single footnote. The note reads as follows: “I refer to tyrants throughout as ‘he’ as they have been predominantly male. Whether this is an historical accident or reflects deeper psychological, institutional or cultural factors is an important question that has not received the scholarly at tension it deserves.” (p.5)

 It’s true that as it pertains to power, authority, and influence, the issue of gender has been severely shortchanged, including among academics. Or, better, as in Patapan’s book, gender is a given. It is a given – an assumption – that as it pertains to power women are an endnote. And it is a given – an assumption – that as it pertains to combat women are similarly no more than a sidebar. Why? For the simple reason that men are virtually always the tyrants and men are virtually always the aggressors.

We are so used to men being the tyrants or the despots, the totalitarians or the authoritarians, the invaders or the attackers that we refer to them, effectively mindlessly, as “strongmen.” Not – for example, when referencing Russia or China, Turkey or Egypt, North Korea or Cuba or Sudan, as “strongwomen.”

During the heyday of the women’s rights movement (in the late 1960s and early 1970s) attention was paid to the fact that nearly always it was men who made war. Further was the widespread idea that if only women ruled the world, the world would be different. It would be better. But nothing much came of it. Overwhelmingly, everywhere in the world, and in every sector, it is still men who do the leading and women the following. And, overwhelmingly, it is still men who employ force. They do so first to attain and then to maintain, control.   

Hard then to blame Patapan for using “he” – never “she” or even “they” – when writing about the modern tyrant. So far as we know it was not President Putin’s mother who decided to launch an unprovoked attack on Ukraine. Nor was it his erstwhile wife, nor either of his two daughters, nor any of the several other women in his life. It was Putin. Putin whose advisors and close cronies have always been male. Putin who, during his 25 years in power, has presented himself as nothing so much as very, very virile. As All-Man All the Time.**

——————————

*The Modern Tyrant was published in 2026 by Edinburgh University Press.

**https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?phrase=putin+no+shirt&tracked_gsrp_landing=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gettyimages.com%2Fphotos%2Fputin-no-shirt

For months, even years, he was front page news. But now, with occasional exceptions, he has, at least in the United States, receded deep into the background.

Nevertheless, he plows on. He plows on, continues, against all odds, to lead his impossibly beleaguered country. He plows on, continues, against all odds, to lead his troops into battle against an ostensibly formidable military foe. He plows on, continues, against all odds, to lead a coalition of the willing, a retinue of his reliable allies. He plows on, continues, against all odds, to lead a revolution in battlefield technologies. He plows on, continues, against all odds, to weaken his opponent economically, to bleed it so that it cannot continue indefinitely to fight. He plows on, continues, against all odds, to play his part as a beacon of democracy in a world in which such beacons are in short supply. He plows on, continues, against all odds, to circle the globe to make his case, to shake hands with anyone anywhere who might provide him and his followers with critical military, financial, political, and technological support.

When the history of this period is written Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will be one of the very, very few political leaders who proved the real deal. A good leader who was exceedingly, exceptionally effective and reasonably, relatively ethical.   

Those among us who are students of leadership would do well to move him from background to foreground. Zelensky continues to stand the test of time. He is a political leader who defies the odds. Who remains true to his mission and who continues faithfully to do everything in his power to keep his followers, his country, as strong, independent, determined and democratic as possible under its impossibly difficult circumstance.

When I wrote my previous post, I was not aware of how big the story about the Hungarian election would become. In both the United States and the West generally the resounding defeat of Viktor Orban was hailed by many as a harbinger of change. A signal that rightism and populism – which had pockmarked the West – were on their way out and that centrism and moderation were on their way back in. I also pointed out that what had happened in Hungary reflected a triumph of fed-up followers over a leader who had long been confirmed as corrupt as callous.

All of which raises the question of how replicable the Hungarian model really is. Should we assume that what happened in Hungary is, for example, a signal that the far-right party in Germany, the AfD – which in recent years has been stunningly successful – is similarly fated to have seen its better days? Or, for that matter that not only are Donald Trump’s approval ratings at all time lows, but that Trumpism itself is part of America’s past, not its future or even its present.

Counterintuitively, Hungary had four advantages that, for example, the United States might not enjoy, especially not at the national level. For Hungarians to defeat their autocratic leader they had to have:

• An election that – despite their country’s being termed an illiberal democracy – was reasonably free and fair.   
• A massive turnout so the prime minister’s defeat resounded throughout the country as throughout the world.
• A landslide victory with Orban’s opponent winning by so large a margin that his victory was indisputable.     
• A single candidate around whom Hungarians could coalesce. Peter Magyar was their man, and he will become their next prime minister. But… Magyar came to national attention through a highly atypical set of circumstances that, among other things, involved personal, political, and financial scandal.  (Remember… context matters!)  

If we Americans are sufficiently vigilant, we might well have free and fair elections both in 2026 and in 2028. If we Americans are sufficiently engaged, we might well have high voter turnouts both times over. And if we Americans better remember what we have in common rather than what drives us apart we might well also bestow on some candidates’ major victories.

Which brings us to the final criterion: will the opposition produce candidates – around whom the American people can coalesce? Will Democrats stop their infighting? Will Democrats get their act together? Will Democrats unite around platforms that are clear, consistent, and coherent? Most importantly, will Democrats produce a single presidential candidate who is as clever as charismatic as qualified?

Evidence is growing that Americans long to be led by someone other than Trump – or his toadies. But for him and his minions to be tossed sooner rather than later into the dustbin of history will require of Democrats a level of innovation and cooperation that is not yet in evidence.

Viktor Orban has been Prime Minister of Hungary for sixteen years. For most of this time he governed the country, or ruled it, not with an iron fist but with a heavy hand. He was an autocrat or, if you prefer, an illiberal democrat or, if you prefer, a kleptocrat or, if you prefer, a crony capitalist. He was in any case a right-wing leader who by every western account was corrupt as well as inept; was chummier with the likes of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump than with those of Kier Starmer and Emmanual Macron; and was more of a destroyer of democratic institutions than a protector of them.

So, in the weeks before yesterday’s national elections liberals both within Hungary and without had three major concerns, First, would Orban win yet another term as prime minister? Second, if he lost, would he lose by a large margin or by a small one? (The second would allow him more easily to defy the result.) And third, if he lost, even if decisively, would he agree to go or would he fight his defeat?

For at least the last ten years Orban’s leadership was unwavering and unrelenting both at home and abroad. At every turn he made clear that he was no friend of Europe, or of the West generally, or of any Hungarian who was opposed to his person, his politics, or his policies. Moreover, for most of his time in office his people, his followers, most Hungarians, were content to go where he led. Or, if they were not, they were not so malcontent as actively to resist him.

Yesterday this changed – in a big way. Orban was not just defeated at the polls by his opponent, Peter Magyar. Orban was defeated in a landslide. He was defeated by enormous numbers of people who previously were willing to follow his lead, but willing to do so no longer.

For Hungarians – and for others who closely watched – one could however argue that yesterday’s biggest surprise was not what Hungarian voters did, but what their prime minister did. Instead of resisting the outcome or even defying it, Orban acknowledged his defeat rather early and relatively graciously.

A large part of the high anxiety shared in recent years by the numberless Americans who not only intensely dislike President Donald Trump but who intensely fear him – fear above all that he will do permanent damage to America’s democratic political system – is first that he will rig the November 2026 and 2028 elections and second that even if he and his fellow Republicans are defeated by the electorate, they will not quit their posts.

Hard to believe that I’m writing this. But we might have hit on a moment in which Hungarians, including Orban, are our leaders and we the American people, including Trump, are their followers.  Notice that I write “might.”

It happens I’m currently teaching a course (locally) based on the first book I ever wrote. In my many years of teaching I’ve never taught All the President’s Kin: Their Political Roles. But somehow, I thought it time to revive the subject – that is, the subject of how important political roles have been played in the modern presidency by various members of president’s families. (Think, for example, of Jared Kushner, son in law of the incumbent president.) In fact, since the time of President John Kennedy, so important have these roles been that we can say that no presidency since his has been without one or another family member playing a critical part either during the presidential campaign, or during the president’s tenure in the White House, or both.  

Imagine my astonishment when within an hour or two of concluding yesterday’s class I learned that while we were in session First Lady Melania Trump had made an unannounced but nevertheless formal, televised, and scripted appearance from a podium in the White House, apparently for the sole purpose of denying anything more than “casual” ties to Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. What motivated the president’s wife to make this statement in this way at this time, I cannot say. I can, however, say that up to now no First Lady has ever felt the need to deny that she was “a victim” of a convicted sex offender.

By and large America’s First Ladies have carried out whatever their vague duties capably and honorably. Moreover, in the modern presidency presidents’ wives have been highly visible, closely scrutinized, and expected to perform impeccably both stylistically and substantively.

The ways in which they served the country have varied widely, of course. Jacqueline Kennedy was an altogether different sort of First Lady from Rosalynn Carter, as was Lady Bird Johnson from Patricia Nixon from Hillary Clinton. Some, I might add, derived their powerful political clout from their exceedingly close relationships with their husbands – such as Mrs. Carter and Nancy Reagan. Others were somewhat more distant from the president but nevertheless had a significant and generally positive impact, for instance, Barbara Bush.

Moreover, nearly all modern First Ladies have been highly popular with the American people. Nearly all have ranked among the most widely admired women in the United States, and nearly all were thought well of in their position. In 2005, for example, Gallup reported that fully 85% of the American people approved of the way Laura Bush was doing her job.

Which brings us to Melania Trump – whose approval ratings are, let’s not mince words, terrible. CNN data expert, Harry Enten, put it bluntly when he said this week that based on a survey conducted in late March, her numbers were “absolutely awful.” Melania Trump, he went on, “is breaking records in ways you don’t want to break records,” adding that “the American people really don’t care for her.”  To add to her humiliation, the recent movie that was all about her, and only about her, titled, cleverly, “Melania,” has widely been seen as both a critical and commercial fiasco. (The film cost some $75 million to make and market and so far, has earned back a scant $17 million.)

Every First Lady from Jacqueline Kennedy to Jill Biden has performed some sort of function and therefore has had some sort of impact. In some cases, this impact was domestic, for example, Mrs. Kennedy was known to have been a superb White House hostess who held glittering events that brought together people with different political views and from all walks of life. In other cases, this impact was relational, for example, Mrs. Reagan was so close to her husband that he and she were effectively one. Nancy was her Ronnie’s political as well as personal mainstay, his alter ego. In still other cases this impact was civic or philanthropic, for example, in the case of Mrs. Johnson and Barbara Bush. And in still other cases First Ladies were barrier breakers – examples are Hillary Clinton, a major political force in her own right; and Michelle Obama who, by her own testimony with some difficulty, broke the racial barrier.   

Melania Trump has been none of these things. Intensely private, even secretive, she is not known for having made even a single significant civic or philanthropic contribution either during her first term in the White House or now, during her second. Further, she appears to have a marriage in which husband and wife go their separate ways, so that if she provides the president with support of any kind, even as a modest ballast, we the American people are unaware of it.

Melania Trump is a beautiful woman who is invariably immaculately turned out. But she is rarely seen and nearly never heard. Moreover, what she cares about is as opaque today as it was when Donald Trump first came to our collective attention. If Mrs. Trump has ever contributed anything positive to the national conversation or to our collective welfare, it remains a well-kept secret. Of course, she still might. But time is running out. Her days in the White House, like those of her husband, are numbered.  

Yes, I refer here to Donald J. Trump. And no, I do not refer here to the president’s politics or his policies. Neither at home nor abroad.

Instead, my reference is to his manners. He is the most ill-mannered leader, in any sector, that I at least am familiar with. His public displays of coarseness and rudeness, along with his vulgarities, are in a class by themselves.

Trump’s social media post of yesterday morning was so radical a departure from the norm, from how previous American presidents have conducted themselves in any circumstance – not to speak of on the most important, the holiest, day on the Christian calendar – that we must wonder if, as some experts have argued, Trump is becoming senile. Maybe. But his use of language, his choice of words, while shocking, was no more than a continuation of, an extension of, an exaggeration of, behaviors that have long since been transgressive.

Let’s be clear though. If Trump is a one-man wrecking ball – a leader who wrecks our civility as he does our civics – we have only ourselves to blame. It is we the people who for years have tolerated his lying and cheating, as it is we the people who have long since put up with a president who – on Easter Sunday, 2026 –  chose to write this:

Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.

Evil Leadership – The leader and at least some followers commit atrocities. They use pain as an instrument of power. The harm done to men, women and children is severe rather than slight. This harm can be physical, or psychological, or it can be both. *

While the world’s attention is largely on the war in the Middle East, the war in Ukraine grinds on. So my focus today is on the evil leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin – which, now year in, year out, continues. I do not even refer here to the pain that Putin’s unprovoked attack in February 2022 daily inflicts on Ukrainians. I refer instead to the pain that his unprovoked attack daily inflicts on Russians. On his own people, his followers.  

The information in this post is from a report published in January by the bipartisan, nonprofit Center for Strategic and International Studies. ** The report details the cruelties that are regularly inflicted on men who serve in the Russian military – who serve in the military for the sole purpose of fueling the war by Russia against Ukraine.

Since the war started Russian forces have suffered nearly 1.2 million casualties, “more losses than any major power in any war since World War II.” Ironically, Russia has nearly nothing to show for its losses. Even in their most prominent offensives, Russian soldiers are managing to advance at an average rate of between 15 and 70 meters per day, “slower than almost any major offensive campaign in any war in the last century.” Meanwhile, while Russia has not so far buckled, and while it is, courtesy of the war in the Middle East, being gifted by climbing oil prices, its economy nevertheless is showing severe strains.

My point is not, however, the inadequacy of Putin’s performance as a wartime leader. It is the cruelty of Putin’s performance as a wartime leader.*** In Russia’s military, men reportedly fear their ostensible friends more than they do their ostensible foes. Specifically, unless they are able and willing to pay their way out of their predicament, they can be and often are abused by their superiors. For corruption in Russia’s military is rampant and so, in consequence, is brutality. Hundreds of videos are now being circulated on Russian social media that reveal horrific punishments by superiors extorting money from their subordinates. “Soldiers report being locked in cages, electrocuted and sexually assaulted. Those wounded, but lucky enough to survive must pay thousands more to be declared unfit for service, or they’re forced to literally limp into battle.”  

The specifics are these. If a Russian soldier pays the equivalent of $2,000, he will be assigned away from the front line. If a Russian soldier pays the equivalent of $6,000, he will be assigned to the rear of his unit. And, if a soldier can pay the staggering Russian equivalent of $12,000, he will be given a fraudulent discharge on medical grounds.  

How does such a thing happen? How does it happen that in a country such as Russia – whose population is more than 75% European – the regime is able totally to tyrannize its people?  The answer is it’s something of a mystery. But its roots lie in the human condition. And… in Russia’s geography, history, ideology, religion, and tradition as each of these pertains to relations between leaders and followers.

——————————————————————–

*Definition in Barbara Kellerman, Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters (Harvard Business School Press, 2004).

** https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-grinding-war-ukraine

*** https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/russian-corruption-fuels-massive-casualties-in-ukraine

The number of Saturday’s No Kings Day protesters was estimated to be about eight million. In my previous post I said that this would suffice for the third No Kings Day to be assessed a success. Which it was. At a minimum it was among the largest public protests in American history. Given that a year ago no one had heard of such a thing as No Kings, that’s quite a feat.

However, as I also pointed out, the day’s agenda was amorphous, deliberately so. As the name “No Kings” suggests, the demonstrations were more anti-President Donald Trump than they were pro anything.  Which of course raises the question of whether the protesters have enough in common effectively to promote a more precise political agenda. An agenda more expansive than dumping Trump.

At the same time as preparations for this third No Kings Day were getting into high gear, two reports confirmed what many of us suspected: that democracy is in decline not just in the United Sates but around the world.

The titles of the two reports say it all. Sweden’s V-Dem’s is named “Unraveling the Democratic Era.” And America’s Freedom House’s is named, “The Growing Shadow of Autocracy.” Freedom House found that in 2025 “global freedom declined for the 20^th consecutive year.” And V-Dem found that the world has never seen as many countries that, simultaneously, are “autocratizing.” Moreover, the United States is Exhibit A. Legislative constraints on the American executive are at historic lows. And U.S. democracy overall is at the level it was more than a half century ago, before the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  

Which raises two questions: Why is this happening and can anything be done to reverse the trend? Our tendency has been to blame the political establishment for whatever it is that ails us. Specifically, followers have blamed democratic political leaders for what has gone wrong. And followers have imagined that getting autocratic political leaders – ones more disposed to use an iron fist than a velvet glove – will or at least might ameliorate the situations in which they find themselves.

Let’s get tell it like it is: ordinary people both in the United States and in democracies elsewhere in the world are experiencing frustration that is morphing slowly but certainly into fury. Specifically, increasingly, followers are furious that the middle class status to which they aspired seems out of reach; that affordable housing is difficult, even impossible to come by; that their college degrees are perilously close to being worthless; and that while their struggles are mounting the leadership class – those at or near the top of the heap – are enjoying lifestyles of the rich and famous.

Who constitutes the leadership class? Leaders in every sector. Most obviously in the private sector where enormous wealth is being accumulated at dizzying speeds. But in other sectors as well, including in the public one where rampant corruption increasingly seems – certainly in the United States, during the time of Trump – not the exception but the rule.

Reports such as those recently issued by V-Dem and Freedom House are as valuable as they are depressing. But they do not adequately address the root of the problem. Which is not just that democracy is in decline, but that capitalism is failing. One could in fact argue – and I do – that democracy is in decline precisely because capitalism is failing.*

——————————————-

  *The first chapter of my most recent book is titled, “Democracy in Decline and Capitalism in Question.” (Leadership from Bad to Worse: What Happens When Bad Festers, Oxford University Press, 2024.)