Leaders in America were damned if they did. And they were damned if they didn’t. If they did speak out about the war in the Middle East – made any statement at all – they were bound to be attacked by some or another of their constituents. And if they didn’t speak out about the war in the Middle East they were bound to be attacked by some or another of their constituents.
Let’s review the context:
- Leadership in America has always been difficult. Our history was, after all, revolutionary. The American Revolution birthed a political culture in which resistance to authority was admired, not despised.
- Leadership in America has always been difficult. Our ideology is, after all, in strong support of followers, not leaders. It gives ammunition to ordinary people for whom ideals such as freedom and democracy buttress their claim to have a say.
- Leadership in America has always been difficult. And, our constitution and our system of government were, after all, deliberately crafted to preclude any single individual or branch of government from accumulating too much power. Hence … “checks and balances.”
- Leadership in America is even more difficult now than it was before. The rights revolutions of the 19th, 20th and even into the 21st centuries expanded our conceptions of who was entitled, legally as well as morally, to have a say.
- Leadership in America is even more difficult now than it was before. Social media give everyone a voice -many ominous and downright dangerous. Leaders are especially vulnerable to followers consumed by hatred and rage.
Let’s review the situation:
- An unprecedented and unanticipated war in the Middle East, between Israel and Hamas, triggered by a bloody attack.
- A war in an area of the world beset by ancient hatreds.
- A war in which the warring parties evoked impassioned responses not only in the region but around the world.
- A war which in the United States is home to people who strongly support both sides.
- A war with potentially enormous geopolitical consequences – political, economic, and military.
Let’s review the followers – the American people:
- Most don’t care much, if at all, about the war in the Middle East.
- But some care a lot. Some on the right care a lot and so do some on the left, even some in middle. Moreover, some if not most Jews care, and some if not most Muslims do the same.
- Of those that do care a lot about the war in the Middle East, there is not necessarily agreement. For example, some American Jews strongly support Israel doing whatever it deems necessary to defend itself. Others condemn Israel for putting in harm’s way many civilians.
- Americans who have done something as opposed to nothing have done different things: written letters to editors; vented on social media; spoken out at meetings or other gatherings; put up signs or posters supporting or denigrating one or another side; attended a march, protest or rally; donated money to their cause; or withheld money from an organization or institution they concluded had violated principles in which they deeply believed.
- Americans are divided on the war on the Middle East. But an overwhelming majority – 84% – are either very or somewhat concerned that the United States will be drawn into what at this writing remains still a confined conflict.
Finally let’s review the leaders. Here a sample:
- The President of the United States. You know you have a problem when your most immediate followers are among your most restive. This week more than 500 government officials representing some 40 government agencies signed a letter protesting the Biden administration’s Middle East policy. Moreover public support for President Biden’s stance on the war is slipping, even among Democrats.
- Other elected officials. Longtime, generally mild-mannered Senator Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, was booed at a vigil in Boston when he had the temerity to call for a “de-escalation of the current violence.”
- Appointed officials. None other than the relentlessly hard-working and publicly mild-mannered Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, faced dissent in his ranks. Some of his State Department underlings used the Department’s internal “dissent channel” to protest Blinken’s policy in the Middle East, which they viewed as too strongly pro-Israel. He in turn felt the better part of valor was to assure his subordinates that, “we’re listening.”
- Presidents of colleges and universities. They’ve been on the frontlines since day one. Harvard’s newly minted president Claudine Gay is evidence. One of her predecessors, Larrry Summers, stated publicly that he was “sickened” by the university’s “silence.” Major Harvard funders Leslie and Abigail Wexner criticized Gay’s “tiptoeing” and “equivocating” on the war and announced they were cutting all ties to the University. Nor were students exempt – Harvard’s campus was sundered by student groups noisily, sometimes aggressively, attacking those who opposed them.
- CEO’s – if they said anything they usually were careful, very careful. Most statements coming out of corporate headquarters were anodyne – such as Microsoft’s, which condemned the “hatred and brutality;” Intel’s which said the company was taking steps to “safeguard and support” their workers; and JPMorgan’s, which called the war a “terrible tragedy.” There were exceptions – but by and large corporate leaders have become gun shy. For good reason. They know now that if they take a stance on anything that’s remotely political or controversial, they – and the companies they lead – will be vulnerable to attack.
Anyone say that leading in that America was hard?* In the past it was hard. In the present it is hard. And in the future it will be harder still.
Unless of course we elect a president who is a fascist – in which case no problem. Fascists don’t even bother to persuade us to do what they want us to do. They just force us to do it.
—————————————————————————————————————–
*Barbara Kellerman, Hard Times: Leadership in America (Stanford University Press, 2015).