By Greg Weiner
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
One made this observation of the people of Asia, that
they were all slaves to one man, merely because they could not pronounce that
syllable No. . . .
— Plutarch’s Morals
The recently released transcripts from the House of
Representatives’ impeachment inquiry show an abiding concern with what
President Trump said to his subordinates in conversations about Ukraine. But
both investigators and voters should also be concerned with what the
subordinates said back. To hear Trump’s retellings of conversations with aides,
he is surrounded by flatterers who incessantly call him “sir” but never precede
the honorific with “no.” If Trump possessed sufficient self-confidence to hire
aides willing to challenge him, he might not be facing impeachment. Regardless
of one’s views on whether he should remain in office, it is clear that flattery
has served him poorly. He, as well as those who aspire to his office, should
take note.
What remains unclear is whether, in any of the
president’s conversations about Ukraine, any aide or friend refused his orders
or counseled unequivocally against them. Everything we know about the Trump
administration after nearly three years suggests not. Like much of the most
damning evidence against Trump in the impeachment inquiry, the culture of
sycophancy in his White House requires no investigation. The proof comes from
his own public words and the words of those around him.
Recently, General John Kelly, the former White House
chief of staff, recalled that he warned Trump not to hire a replacement “who
won’t tell you the truth — don’t do that. Because if you do, I believe you will
be impeached.” Denying that Kelly issued such a warning, Trump responded that
if he had, “I would have thrown him out of the office.”
This stands as one of the more revealing statements about
the character of both Trump and his administration. The important thing is not
whether the exchange with Kelly actually occurred, but how Trump said he would
have replied. Why would Kelly have been evicted from the Oval Office for
speaking his mind? The president aspires to a faux toughness that is intolerant
of dissent and consequently characteristic of weakness. A self-confident, truly
strong leader would have appreciated his chief of staff’s independent mind and
frank speech.
In this respect, Trump could learn a thing or two from
his predecessors George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, both of whom surrounded
themselves with people who disagreed with them and with each other.
“Be no flatterer,” a teenaged Washington recorded in his
“Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” It was a
principle of leadership for him as well. As president, his cabinet was broad
enough to encompass Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, whose
disagreements on economic and foreign policy were legion. Eulogizing
Washington, his friend and fellow founder Gouverneur Morris praised the
self-confidence required for the first president to surround himself with
brilliance: “Leaving to feebler minds that splendor of genius, which, while it
enlightens others, too often dazzles the possessor — he knew how best to use
the rays which genius might emit, and carry into action its best conceptions.”
Lincoln knew how to organize and draw strength from
competing opinions, too. He recruited a cabinet from among politicians who had
opposed his bid for the presidency. His cabinet meetings were routinely forums
for bitter disagreement. It was a sign of his self-confidence and skilled
leadership that he harnessed these disputes to inform his decisions. By
contrast, Trump’s cabinet meetings are characterized by obsequious, and often
self-abasing, praise of the president.
That does not mean strong leaders preside over chaos.
They are, rather, both willing and eager to be challenged, to invite differing
views and, ultimately, to harmonize these perspectives into coherent policies
for which they welcome accountability. Presidents are entitled to expect
confidentiality in these disputes, something Trump, like most of his
predecessors, has often not enjoyed. But they should encourage dissent
regardless, on the understanding that they will ultimately decide and their
subordinates will support the results of an honest process.
The self-confidence required to foster and preside over
such a process is acutely important for presidents, who live in a state of
gilded isolation in which supplicants and sycophants are a constant presence.
Yet Trump has, one by one, removed advisers who stood up to or simply stalled
him — often for those very offenses — while replacing them with exactly the
type against whom Kelly warned.
Congressional Republicans who fawn over Trump, whether
out of genuine infatuation or political self-interest, bear a special
responsibility for the president’s errors. The Democratic impulse to find fault
with his every move does not help in this regard, as it devalues the criticism
he needs to hear while justifying a sense of permanent siege within his White
House. It is also unhelpful for aides who cast themselves as defenders of the
republic to wage bureaucratic warfare against the president, as many have
reportedly done. Such behavior makes claims of “deep state” conspiracy more
plausible, whereas confrontation or resignation would better serve the
president. Still, the primary responsibility for correcting Trump lies not with
his critics but rather with his confidantes. They would serve themselves and
him better by heeding the aphorism Plutarch attributes to the Athenian
statesman Phocion: “You cannot have for me both a friend and a flatterer.”
Trump’s recent cancellation of the White House subscriptions
to critical newspapers was more a revelatory than a symbolic gesture. So are
his attacks on Fox News personalities who deviate even slightly from his
desired narrative. The resulting portrait is one of a president stewing in
executive time and gazing constantly, like Narcissus, into the reflection of Fox
and Friends to confirm what he already thinks. His staff helps, reportedly
feeding him daily folders of favorable press clippings.
All this suggests that the most important trait of
presidents may be the self-confidence Trump thus far has lacked. An important
question to ask candidates for the office is: Which adviser last disagreed with
you, and what was your response? Strong leaders do not reply by kicking
dissenters to the curb. As Trump’s predicament demonstrates, the chief danger
of sycophancy is not to the flatterer. It is to the flattered.
No comments:
Post a Comment