Leaders have power, authority, and influence. Or, at least, they have more power, authority, and, or influence than their followers. Vis-vis their leaders, followers are, then, at a disadvantage.
How significant is this disadvantage? Is whoever the leader impermeably strong? Are whoever the followers hopelessly weak? Or is the imbalance between leaders and followers within reason, in the natural order of things?
If the imbalance is extreme, the first question is does anyone care? Do the followers care that their leader is so relatively strong and they are so relatively weak? If the answer to this first question is yes, there is a second one. How can followers take on leaders who are far, far, stronger than them?
Even though President Donald Trump’s second term is still young, the question has already been asked as it applies to him, repeatedly. The answer has been elusive especially because some of Trump’s most prominent followers are not in any conventional sense of this word, weak. They have enormous resources which, however, they have been unwilling to tap into to stand up to the administration.
The roster of those who have been demonstrably weak is familiar. They include but are not limited to heads of law firms and universities; titans of business and media; and nearly every Republican who was elected and every Republican who was appointed. In each of these cases leaders have morphed into followers. They have kowtowed and caved, submitted and surrendered to an American president they seem to think all-powerful while they seem to feel, in comparison with him, powerless.
Similarly, Democrats have shown only faint signs of resistance. There are some exceptions, such as Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As well, there has been some civic resistance, for example, on June 14th, on “No Kings Day.” Still, while the occasion consisted of impressively large anti-Trump protests across the country, to all appearances they proved ineffective. In fact, if they made so much as a chink in the president’s armor, it’s impossible for the naked eye to see.
Ironically, many of the president’s most strikingly servile followers are themselves leaders. Moreover, some are leaders of among the most powerful of American institutions. What are they thinking? That they will strike a deal with the president that he will honor, indefinitely? That by kissing the president’s ring they will protect themselves against his ire, permanently? That the president is so singularly, so stunningly gifted at the art of the deal they are helpless in comparison?
Every one of them ignores the most fundamental rule of power dynamics. That for the weak to take on the strong – with even a prayer of doing so successfully – the weak must unite. They cannot, simply cannot, stand alone.
I wish I could say this insight is uniquely mine. It is not. Not only does the evidence of history testify to the power of numbers it also confirms that when leaders divide their followers, they conquer them. It’s a mystery that, for example, the leaders of top law firms such as Paul, Weiss and Simpson Thatcher did not join hands to resist the Trump administration, any more than did the leaders of top universities such as Columbia and Brown; any more than did the leaders of top tech companies such as, just this week, Apple and Nvidia. So eager were they all to stand alone, not to cooperate or collaborate with each other, that they opted instead to cave. Individually to follow Trump – not collectively to resist him.
Huh?! Where’s the logic in that?! Nowhere.