The Great Leader

In the aftermath of the election, lying awake at night, I entertain myself by going through the alphabet listing adjectives and nouns to describe Trump. L is rich with accurate options: lecher, leech, liar, lewd. But I also added leader.

In an earlier post, I suggest that there is no such thing as leadership. I think I am ready to concede that there is, but it is defined only as an ability to attract followers. Only followers decide who is a leader and therefore the followers have the ultimate power. Position and fame contribute to the ability, but are not part of the definition. Management and coercion are not the same as leadership.

Leadership does not have any moral qualities. Good leaders inspire their followers to do good. Bad leaders may head a parade down the road to perdition. But leadership itself is simply the attraction of followers. By this definition, both Gandhi and Hitler were great leaders. Gandhi may have been better at leadership, since his did not include coercion. Hitler's did, so you cannot compare simply by the numbers.

Trump is a leader; he has attracted followers. He is responsible for a mass movement. And it is a mistake to believe that the worst element of his followers, the deplorables, represent the majority. Good and honest people have followed him and voted for him. His election says more about us than about him.

His tools are not those of a good leader, but he does lead. As Eric Hoffer says, you can have a mass movement without a God, but not without a devil. You need something to fear. And fear is Trump's primary tool of choice. Good and honest people are as motivated by fear as anyone else. As a result, they become less good and less honest and as a collective are capable of great harm.

Many assume and more hope that Trump will drop the tools he used to achieve the office once seated. I am among those who hope. I make no assumptions.