Taylor Deardorf

Final Paper
Roger Soder; Honors 230 B
December 2012
In January of next year, sitting President Barack Obama will be
sworn in again as President for the next four years. This ceremony,
witnessed by thousands thanks to television coverage, is powerful to
watch, and its implications even more so to comprehend; the American
people, with a majority of their consent, will again willingly grant great
power and great influence to one person. This, in essence, is the power
of leadership. Throughout history, humans have given few among
them the ability to rule over and make decisions for them as a whole,
people anywhere from the President of the United States, to CEO of a
major corporation, to Senior Class President at a high school. But if
these people posses this degree power, what exactly constitutes a
good leader? A good leader, I used to believe, simply involved inspiring
those around you to follow you. Yes, to be a good leader, one must be
both ethical and efective in creating a persuaded audience. But it is so
much more than that. Simply creating a public ready and willing to
follow you may be adequate to be a leader in a despotic or dictatorial
state; but I believe that true, good, leadership can only be realized in
a democratic state, where a thoughtful public can exist. The greatest
importance of a leader lies in his or her ability to create, sustain, and
rebuild the conditions necessary for a thoughtful public. Indeed, I
believe creation and sustainment of a thoughtful public is the only way
for a democracy to truly endure.
First, if we are to discuss at any length what makes a good
leader, I believe we must start with an examination his or her use of
persuasion. Persuasion, according to Roger Soder in his book, The
Language of Leadership, is the act of convincing others to believe or
act in desired ways, and argues that persuasion is a central aspect of
leadership. While leadership is indeed a complex issue, without the
ability to persuade, Soder says, leaders will have no following. Yes,
people in positions of leadership may have good ideas, but only when
they are able to communicate those ideas persuasively to the public
can they become great. This can be exemplified by President Franklin
Pierce, who Stephen Skowronek argued was a failure; not because he
lacked the power of inclination to do great things, but that he
completely lost control over the meaning of what he did. In essence,
he lacked authority to take action. Similarly, Churchill said of John
Adams, in his judgments he was frequently right, but he lacked the
arts of persuasion. Indeed, Lord Chesterfield said, in a letter to his
son, that without persuasion, the best head will contrive to very little
purpose.

If persuasion is necessary for a leader to be efective, and a good

leader is both efective and ethical, we must discuss the ethics of
persuasion as well. Leadership can be boiled down to the choices that
one makes, and how to persuadewhat arguments to make, and how
to phrase themis certainly a choice. When you persuade, you
essentially try to convince others that the way you see things is the
correct way; or as Soder says, we are makingand ofering to others
a choice of a worldview, and the way you choose to ofer that
worldview can have unintended consequences; Indeed, Richard
Weaver believed that a leaders choice of argument to persuade
others is the most critical undertaking of all.
Leaders can use many diferent arguments to persuade, some
more ethical than others. A leader arguing from definition, or as Soder
explained, the nature of the thinga nature that is presumed to
persist and not be altered, is in Weavers mind, more ethical than an
argument from circumstance, essentially saying this is all we can do,
given the situation. President Abraham Lincoln heavily relied on
arguments from definition, as seen in Ralph Lerners book, Revolutions
Revisited: Two Faces of the Political Enlightenment. Lerner discussed
the Lincoln-Douglas debates and specifically Lincolns arguments
concerning slavery. Even though public opinion of slavery at that time
was favorable, Lincoln emphatically disagreed. He said, referring to the
phrase all men are created equal in the Declaration of Independence,
if the Negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self
government to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the
white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he
governs himself, he also governs another man, that is more than self
governmentthat is despotism. Thus the rights promised in the
declaration cannot stop with the black man. Lincoln consistently
focused the debate on moral necessity and moral duty.
Just as how you choose to persuade has ethical implications,
choosing to use other means of coercion, such as force or trickery, has
similar implications. While some may argue that force is a type of
persuasion, I agree with Soder when he said force is evidence of a
failure to persuade, which he supported with a quote by Mussolini,
who stated to the Italian people that they as a people will defend it
[Italy] by persuasion if possible, otherwise with the song of our
machine guns. Sophocles in Philoctetes best exemplifies the
implications of a leaders choice to not persuade. Philoctetes is a Greek
warrior who is abandoned on a deserted island, surviving with a
magical bow given to him by Heracles. But in this play, Odysseus and
Neoptolemus come back to the island to get the bow from Philoctetes
because an oracle told Odysseus that he could not conquer Troy
without the bow. Odysseus believed there were three ways to obtain
the bow: force, persuasion, or trickery, and because force cannot
work and persuasion is unlikely to work, he used trickery, which in

the end, didnt work either. As Soder said, even here, persuasion does
not workbut it is the only strategy that might work; the other two are
bound to fail. He draws the logical conclusion that if open, honest
persuasion is not going to work for us, then perhaps we need to step
back and reassess the situation.
Indeed, choices a leader makes concerning persuasion have
tangible repercussions, what Soder deems the ecology of persuasion.
Gregory Bateson elaborated the means by which one man influences
another are part of the ecology of ideas in their relationship, and part
of the larger ecological system within which that relationship exists.
Just like a complex, interconnected ecosystem, how a leader chooses
to act in regards to persuasion reverberates out into society at large.
Further, how a leader chooses to handle getting business done
persuading his public ultimately can end in changing the public. Soder
gave an example of a mother telling her child that she should love her
grandmother not because you should love your family, but to inherit
her money when she passes away; if a child is brought up viewing the
world this way, she will more likely view the world through the lens of a
cost-benefit analysis. Similarly, a leader can actually changefor
better or worsehis or her public from the way he or she persuades
them. This is an immense power, and shows the importance of
persuasion in determining a good leader.
Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch once wrote, Who does not seek after
Persuasion? It is the aim of all the arts, and, I suppose of all exposition
of the sciences; nay, of all useful exchange of converse in our daily
life. However, if all of us really do use persuasion, then all leadersin
every type of political systemuse persuasion as well. If persuasion
can change a public, and all people, especially, as we have
determined, people in power, use persuasion, does that mean that
leadership in all political regimes are the same? Because of the
inherent diferences in despotic and democratic regimes, I believe
leadership is also inherently a diferent task.
Before we discuss leadership specifically, perhaps it would be
better to start by diferentiating between a democratic society and a
despotic one. Soder, in his book, found three main diferences: passive
acceptance versus outward skepticism, silence versus open criticism,
and compliance versus consent. Because these diferences exist, Soder
claims that leadership is also intrinsically diferent in each society.
Despotic leaders dont really need to cultivate any sort of rapport with
their people, because a constant state of fear exists to efectively
thwart any questioning of the governments legitimacy. But in a
democratic society, where because the public has the power to replace
their government, Soder argues leaders must rely on persuasion,
consensus building, and maintaining legitimacy, while paying close
attention to what the public is trying to say. To further develop the
idea of ecological impacts of how a leader chooses to persuade, a

leader in a despotic state could much more easily rely on an argument

from circumstancewe must act this way now because the situation
requires itthan a leader in a society where the citizens can truly
question what their leaders are saying. Leaders in a democracy (or at
least efective ones) are therefore more likely to rely on arguments
from definition, in an efort to build consensus with their public, than a
despotic leader, who has no real need for a relationship of that nature
with their public.
But even if leadership is vastly diferent in each society, all
leaders still aim (through diferent means) for a persuaded audience.
Why is this, given the diferences of political regime? I believe, as
stated earlier, that a persuaded audience is necessary in every political
context. However, I believe that for a true democracy, something more
is needed beyond simply a persuaded audience. But why exactly is
something more needed, and what is this something? To illuminate
this issue, we should examine both chapter 5, The Grand Inquisitor,
of The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky and chapter VI of
Alexis de Tocquevilles Democracy in America and the implications of
each view on leadership.
In this chapter from The Brothers Karamazov, Jesus Christ returns
to Spain in the sixteenth century. He begins performing miracles
similar to that of his earlier years in the bible, but he is soon stopped
by the Grand Inquisitor, and taken into custody. Later that night he
visits the jailed Christ and begins a conversation that reveals the
Inquisitors view on human nature. The Inquisitor tells Christ that the
people are more certain than ever before that they are completely
free, and at the same time they themselves have brought us their
freedom and obediently laid it at our feet. But in the Grand Inquisitors
view, their loss of freedom is a good thing, saying people have finally
overcome freedomin order to make people happy. The Inquisitor
believes the best way to have a stable society is to take away freedom
while securing what he believes people really want, basic necessities
like food, shelter, and water.
I believe the only way the Inquisitor can believe loss of freedom
is a good thing is by possessing a low view of human nature, which,
indeed, he does. The Inquisitor begins a discussion with Jesus of his
temptation in the desert, when the devil asked, according to the
Inquisitors phrasing, But do you see these stones in this bare,
scorching desert? Turn them into bread and mankind will run after you
like sheep, grateful, obedient, though eternally trembling lest you
withdraw your hand and your loaves cease for them. Though Jesus
replied to the devil that man does not live by bread alone, the
Inquisitor believes the people will respond in this way because Jesus
promise of freedom cannot even be comprehended by the simple
and lawless people, because nothing has ever been more insuferable
for man and for human society than freedom! He believes that

people, on the whole, have throughout history had trouble getting and
sustaining their own food, making good moral decisions, and accepting
others even if their opinions difer, and thus unable to truly handle
Jesus great gift of freedom. The inquisitor believes that leaders are the
few who can handle this freedom, this burden of power, so the leaders
responsibility in his view is to rule over the people who cannot do so
themselves; take care of the big issues, while letting them think they
are perfectly free, and let them be content.
This despotic-sounding type of government advocated for by the
Inquisitor could, in Alexis de Tocquevilles mind, come to abide in a
similar form even in America, saying a democratic state of society
similar to that found there could lay itself peculiarly open to the
establishment of a despotism. Tocqueville believes this type of
despotism in democracy, or soft despotism, would degrade men
rather than torment them. He believes that the leaders in a soft
despotism would not be tyrants, but rather schoolmasters, and that
unlike a parental authority, this soft despotism would not prepare its
children for life, but rather try to keep them in perpetual childhood.
Indeed, the government, by creating a network of petty, complicated
rules, both minute and uniform, through which even men of the
greatest originality and the most vigorous temperament cannot force
their heads above the crowd, they will softens, bends, and guides it
[mens will]. While this government is not a tyranny, it hinders,
restrains, enervates, stifles and stultifies so much that in the end each
nation is no more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with
the government as its shepherd. This, in turn, causes them to lose
the faculty of thinking, feeling and acting for themselves.
This possibility of a soft despotism in a democracywhere
people could, as the Grand Inquisitor said, be more certain than ever
before that they are completely free and yet lack freedomis why
something else is needed besides a persuaded audience in a
democratic society. The society in the world of the Grand Inquisitor was
certainly persuaded if we believe him; in fact, they were happy to lack
the freedoms they did. So what exactly is missing? To guard against
soft despotism, a not only persuaded, but thoughtful public must exist.
To begin a discussion of what a more thoughtful public is, we will revisit
Ralph Lerners analysis of Lincoln.
Lerner said the way Lincoln chose to argue for abolition in the
Lincoln-Douglas debates revealed his deep belief in the value of public
opinion in a democracy and his desire to create what Lerner deemed a
more thoughtful public. But what is this thoughtful public Lincoln
wanted? Lincoln said, I take it that I have to address an intelligent and
reading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then
judge. Instead of taking what his arguments at face value and
becoming convinced, or persuaded, Lincoln wanted a public who,
after critical thinking, knew it to be true. Lerner said Lincoln

understood that the realm of politics is the realm of public opinion,

saying on one occasion, in this age, and this country, public sentiment
is everythingwith it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can
succeed. A thoughtful public is the opposite of the picture Tocqueville
painted of soft despotism, one where the people lost the faculty of
thinking, feeling and acting for themselves.
So if thoughtfulness is a characteristic the public must have,
what can a good leader do? A leader must first desire a thoughtful
public, like Lincoln did. He must not only want what the Grand
Inquisitor hasan unquestioning faithful and abiding publicbut
instead want a public that is well attuned to the power they
themselves possess and the necessity of protecting their freedom;
Alexis de Tocqueville called this impart[ing] to the people a taste for
freedom and the art of being free. Thus, the role of a leader in
cultivating a more thoughtful public must first be creating, and then
continually sustaining and reconstituting the elements of a society that
must be in place to harbor such a public.
As Dewey said, if we want individuals to be free we must see to
it that suitable conditions exist; thus the first step in having a more
thoughtful public is creating a society where one can exist. Soder, in an
excerpt from Developing Democratic Character in the Young entitled
Education for Democracy, names certain conditions that give a
reasonable sense of the kind of character we as a people must have in
order to sustain the kind of democratic regime we want to have,
certain elements that must exist for democracy to exist as well. He
believes within a free, democratic society people must trust others
enough to exchange ideas, develop social capital and participate in
and respect civil discourse. Once we trust others in our society, we can
enter into an open conversation, able to talk to each other, advance
ideas, adduce evidence, and weigh and consider options. Soder
affirms free and open inquiry must be allowed for democracy, because
people will not be able to participate in any thoughtful wayunless
they have the ability and inclination to inquire into all aspects of the
workings of society. This is why a thoughtful public can only exist in a
democratic society; without the ability to openly question the
government and look into issues, true thoughtfulness would be
impossible to exist.
And a thoughtful public, according to Soder, must be
knowledgeable. They must know their rights, recognize the importance
of the law, and the importance of freedom. The public must be
encouraged, and given the ability, to take an active role in their
government, and to be more thoughtful. But where can the people
gain the tools necessary to become this public? While many options
are available, Soder believes these ideals central to a democracy are
best transferred through the schools, stating the public schools
remain the most likely place that most people will be able to learn

about what is necessary to establish and sustain and improve our

democracy. Thus, Soder claims the public function of schools is to
teach children their moral and intellectual responsibilities for living and
working in a democracy. Indeed, Ralph Lerner argued, [Schools]
would go far in inculcating the technical skills and moral lessons that
might render the people safe and knowing guardians of their own
liberty. Beyond all of this, Soder says because conditions are created
by people, the people must act. The public must have a certain
character that can create and sustain the conditions necessary for a
democracy. A public can only create the conditions necessary for a
democracy if they are knowledgeable, thoughtful, enough to know
them.
After creation, no idea, no political goal, no condition for
democracy is inherently eternal; for anything to persist within the
context of society, it must be sustained. While creation and initiation is
difficult, going about leading when the initial spark, excitement and
enthusiasm surrounding a beginning is gone is a challenging matter as
well. Ralph Lerner said, a thoughtful public is difficult to sustain,
especially in times of stress. Indeed, Soder affirms, it is not an easy
task to sustain a democracy. Nevertheless, leaders, with their power
and influence, must work to sustain certain aspects of society.
However, having only the leader convinced of the worth of his or her
own vision of society does little good; all societal goods are
accomplished and enacted through the people. The leaders job lies,
again, in persuading the public that sustaining is necessary. But how
can he or she do this, and can his or her persuasion work to create a
more thoughtful public? To examine this idea further, we will adapt two
opposite viewsthe past and the futureprovided by Ralph Lerner and
Stewart Brand, respectively.
Ralph Lerner, in chapters 4 and 6 of the book Revolutions
Revisited, recognizes the difficult task of sustainment and, with
Abraham Lincoln, exemplifies how sustaining can be attempted and
argued for. Lincoln spoke out in a precarious time in American history
on abolition, a controversial topic. He believed that the only way the
country could be sustained, could continue on, and would be through
abolition. But convincing a public who, on the whole, didnt see things
the way he did was a daunting task for any politician, debater, or
person to approach. Lincoln, in order to persuade the American people
and sustain the American democracy, chose to argue through view of
the past. Lincoln, through his constant appeals to the American
Revolution and by framing the debate around the Declaration of
Independence, appealed to the collective history of the American
people.
This is one way in which a leader can work to sustain. Lerner asserts
that politicians know they must also gain their countrymens ears so
as to gain their minds, and they can do so by resorting to history.

Lerner then points out that politicians make use of historical example
and interpretation to advance their own policies and promote their own
approaches toward the issues of their day. Lerner says that indeed,
politicians he calls thoughtful men of practical afairs found it useful,
even necessary to appeal to history when addressing their public. By
especially drawing on collective memory, a politician can in fact
remold itwith his own form of persuasion, and interpretation.
Lincolns argument can be boiled down to his belief that we are not
what we have been in regards to liberty. So, Lerner says that Lincoln
attempts to constantly recall the revolution because his immediate
aim is that they [the American people] see afresh who they have been
and what they are about, for hopefully with recollection will come
clarity, and with clarity, right action. This type of persuasion, and
Lincolns choice of argument, further works to create a more thoughtful
public, which we already know he ardently wanted. As Lerner said,
appealing to history invites those so inclined and so able to wonder
about the reasons and causes that led the forebears to think and act as
they did . . . a chance to move beyond merely passive piety and
gratitude for ancestral eforts; it invites them to study, learn, and
develop their own opinions about what happened, and what should be
happening now.
Stewart Brand, in his book The Clock of the Long Now: Time and
Responsibility, claims that sustaining can also be accomplished, not by
looking to the past, but instead looking to the future. He defines now
as, the period in which people feel they live and act and have
responsibilityfor most of us now is a week, sometimes a year. But
he argues that if a leader can encourage society to extend their
nowchange it to a long now insteadthe extent of the societys
interest in current issues and their feeling of responsibility will expand.
Viewing your current actions as a leader through a long view helps
put them into context as to what will truly be able to be sustained, and
what will best benefit progeny.
Similarly to Lincoln, when Brand discussed the benefits of living
in the long now, many of them worked to create a public more in
touch and knowledgeable of the issues in the world todaya more
thoughtful public. His advocacy for a long view causes the reader to
truly examine the present; if a leader would do the same, he or she
could easily illuminate what must be done now to sustain into the
future.
However important creation and sustainment are, a central
element of Soders argument in chapter 5 of his book is the nature of
things in society is to fall apart, to stop working. Indeed, he even
quotes a document from the Song dynasty in the tenth to thirteenth
century, which observed, people of wisdom and understanding know
that trouble cannot be escaped If, indeed, things are predisposed to
fall apart, a leader should be there, willing, ready, and able to pick up

the pieces and reconstitute. Just as a leader has choices when dealing
with persuasion, dealing with fallen situations in a society are,
according to Soder, ethical matterswe have choices in how to
respond when things fall apart, but are also ecological matters in the
sense that small things over timecan lead to major and intended
consequences. This is where reconciliation and reconstitution, as
opposed to ignoring, running from, or running over problems,
become necessary.
Just like sustaining, reconstituting is an extremely difficult
process, a process that requires, according to Soder, much ingenuity
and patience on the part of the leader, but if a society can handle a
bad situation with truth, open discussion, and acknowledgment of the
past, the society can begin the process of reconstitution. Soder argued
not recognizing the past, not coming to terms with the truth, is
costly and debilitating for all parties. Indeed, a given society must be
willing to live up to its past. Referring to Japanese refusal to apologize
for war crimes to prostituted women, an observer noted in the 1930s
that isnt it time to move on? Indeed it is. But facing up to the past is
the way to avoid having to live in it Japans denial of its
wrongdoingsa definite bad situationdidnt serve to improve
Japanese society, and I believe most likely worked to discourage a
thoughtful public. If a leader encourages openness with all of its
dealings, the public will respond and will grow in thoughtfulness.
In the end, the reconstituting is never easy, but it is the only way
to restore society to a healthy state. Reconstituting, however, is only
possible in a democratic society, for, as Soder said, the private sector
will proceed with openness and honesty in examining the past and
seeking the causes for things falling apart when the larger society
places a high value on honesty, openness, and critical inquiry. The
job of the leader, then, ongoing; not only must leaders reconstitute
when things go wrong, they must sustain the conditions that cause
things to go right, and create a society where a thoughtful pubic can
thrive.
Over the course of mere weeks, my eyes have been opened to
the importance of a concerned, thoughtful public, ready to quietly
observe, and forcefully act, when the situation requires it. I firmly
believe democracy requires a public concerned with protecting their
freedoms that they have truly developed a taste for. While leaders
themselves can efect change and have immense influence, the
biggest and, in my opinion, most important influence a leader can have
is on the creation and sustaining of a thoughtful public. Leaders must
be able to look into the future, and see that while they themselves will
soon fade away, a strong system of democratic thoughtfulness will live
on, if they act in a way to sustain it. Leaders must also look to the past,
and see what their country has been, and should be now. And leaders
must look at their people, and truly want them to rise above

themselvesto transcend their state of afairs. True leaders will

ethically and efectively persuade their public, and while doing also
encourage them to become more thoughtful. There is a duality
involved; leaders must want a thoughtful public, and the public must
be up to the task.
In summary, I feel drawn back to the worlds presented by both
Dostoevsky with the Grand Inquisitor and Tocqueville with soft
despotism. Both use such similar phraseology; referring to humans as
sheep and a flock of timid and hardworking animals, phrases that
cannot escape my mind. However, in the similarity there lies a
distinction. The Grand Inquisitor argues to Christ that the people want
it to be this way, for by their nature they cannot carry the burden of
freedom. He believes humans to naturally behave like sheep;
unthinking, blind followers. Tocqueville, while using the phrase timid
and hardworking animals to describe humans only does so after this
soft-despotic government hinders, restrains, enervates, stifles and
stultifies so much that humans become sheep. When first
encountering the Grand Inquisitor, I was shocked to find that I, myself,
in some ways agreed with himthat perhaps it is better to leave some
things to the leaders for the benefit of society. But now, I see things
diferently. People indeed can act as sheep; but I do not believe it to be
in their nature to do so. Instead, I believe as Tocqueville did, that the
government can transform naturally thoughtful, inquisitive creatures
into unquestioning followers. The more I studied and more I witnessed
and inquired into events in the world, the more I noticed within myself
what I now describe as what Tocqueville called a certain sense of
resistance to power.
The possibility of the government to have this efect on its
people more than anything affirms to me the necessity of a thoughtful
public, a public with a taste for freedom. It shows me that while the
power of freedom is a burden and a responsibility, that it cannot be
taken away for the good of order. It illustrates the power of culture
and schooling, to create whole societies instilled with democratic
intuition and the taste for freedom. And it proves to me the necessity
of leaders who work to establish and nurture such a public. In the end,
it is a good leaders job to cultivatethrough creation, sustainment,
and reconstitution--a place where such thoughtfulness can exist.