A Dialogue With A Friend On Leadership--

A Dialogue With A Friend On Leadership--

This back and forth came out of a post in which I commented on the heroism of "Tank Man," who stood before a column of the Chinese Red Army right before the Tianenmen Square massacre, on June 4th 1989. Also I wrote about Alexey Navalny, Russia's "Man In The Iron Mask", the political prisoner whom Putin has sentenced to die in jail. And I asked rhetorically if there are any such men or women in the US today who are ready to step forward and lead in these times.

My friend's question was the following:

["Lance Rosen, what’s your sense of Rev. Barber?  

I agree with you that we have a lack of leadership, but in what form is the question.  In my view, Lincoln was the great American bodhisattva (sp?), and we need that transforming presence at least as much now as was the case in 1860.  

But it’s worth considering Thich Nhat Hahn’s notion that the next great bodhisattva might be the group rather than an individual.  I’ll emphasize the “might be.”  

In any case, the need is there; the precondition of millions of people more ready than they know to be brave and take action in accord with their deepest hopes and ideals is there; and a catalyst in whatever form is possible.

Meanwhile, I’m looking at Pennsylvania, thanks to you.

Go, fight, win."]

Well, that was a doozy of a question. Luckily I think about these things a lot, so I was ready with an answer, fwiw.  Here it is:

["______  _______ we need leaders like Grant and Sherman, and a Lincoln to lead them. People who have an identity rooted in a non-cynical view of history, a committment to democratic principles, the strategic sense and foresight to see the enemy's weak flank before it even materializes because they put themselves into the mind of the adversary; and who have the resolve to hit that vulnerable flank without vacillating; who see reality as it is, not as they wish it to be; who have the strength of character to lead people into conflicts in which they know there will be casualties. And who are willing to risk everything personally for the sake of strangers and an uncertain future. Leadership is living with the bottomless pain of knowing that if you f**k up, people die. It also brings with it an indescribable joy when the mission has succeeded

All of this ceased being politics on January 6th. Now it is "People's War." It is a resistance in which a hopefully non-violent conflict over ideas and principles is unavoidable because of the nature of our adversary, and it being necessary.  

My reading of history is that movements which have been successful at this always needed someone to "take the point" before they would move. But when they did, the "many" moved as "one". This is the concept from which our Union drew it's motto, E Pluribus Unum. 

So I believe it is both, the individual and the group, unified by a higher purpose. That is why and how FDR saved the world. He didn't just "spend money like a Keynesian". He gave the people back their purpose, which was to lead a happy, productive, creative and dignified life, and then pass it on. Those are some of the things to come up in my mind in response to your profound questions, which get right to the point. 

As far as Rev Barber is concerned, I don't know him, but know of him. People for whom I have great respect swear by his honesty and passion for justice. The questions I ask though are not just what he has accomplished, or what are his opinions, or even what he has done wrong. It is whether his passion for justice is stronger than his ego, and is he able to willfully change himself when circumstances demand that he does. 

To me, a leader has to have the ability to self-evaluate and literally throw out things which they had previously believed, which due to changing conditions no longer hold true. This is what most people truly fear, and why we have so few leaders. We fear change every bit as much as we do evil. 

Polio changed Franklin Roosevelt. He had to suffer personally to be able to empathize with the suffering of others. He came out of it both physically handicapped and morally whole at the same time. He let himself undergo a character change. And he had help making the change from a very special lady. That is how, in my view, leaders will always judge themselves worthy or not of the honor and responsibilty of leading."]