Integrity or Craft: Why not Both?

 

“Many voters think that integrity and character are the most important qualifications for political office. I disagree. Integrity—the quality of standing up for the same values in every situation—is not a good qualification for getting people to work together. Strongly held morals may make a candidate too inflexible and incapable of negotiation. And if character were really so important, candidates would be judged by their personal relationships rather than by their ability to deal with a community’s or a nation’s problems.”

 

~ Stanley Fish, “Integrity or Craft: The Leadership Question”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Integrity and character, according to Stanley Fish, cannot be the sole qualities of a good leader. They need to be skilled in their “craft”, or in other words, show the ability to lead instead of sticking to a single idea and being everyone’s, or their constituents’ nice guy. And yet despite Fish’s statement, there are leaders who have proven to history that it is both their integrity and craft that can lead to the sweeping change they desired as leaders. Though an incompetent leader may prove Fish’s words to be true, a leader who has strong moral character and skill can motivate and lead people to solve their nation’s problems. Citizens will always strive to live in a nation free of oppression and lies, but that is an unattainable goal. The citizenry, unfortunately, seem to be collectively ignorant of what is hindering their freedom.  Yet, where there are political injustices, there must be a solution to please the people. Essentially, you must have a leader that empowers the people so that they can direct a nation according to their values. But if the system itself is fraught with corruption, secrecy and double-speak, sometimes what are needed are those who can powerfully remove obstacles, bringing a more level playing field to the situation.

Extraordinary citizens like Thomas Paine and Edward Snowden removed the obstacles that cloud the public’s view on political issues. They challenged and challenge what qualifies a leader to be successful in their craft, with their activism, which appeals to the common interests of all. Paine’s appeal had to do with living freely, out from under the control of an island country 2,000 miles away, while Snowden has identified for the American and international public that NSA (National Security Agency) and CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) spying have threatened our rights. While Snowden is indeed an expert, having reached some of the highest security clearances, he proves himself worthy in his actions of unveiling and sharing the facts of illegal spying, which benefits the citizenry.

With intentions similar to Snowden, Paine explains the negative influence of Britain as a leader in Common Sense. Selfish and unaware of the struggles the American people were enduring, the British taxed their colonies and controlled them without their consent or representation in government. They also used an aristocratic and monarchic government, which Paine saw as “two ancient tyrannies”. With his direct and logical pamphlet, appealing to the common man, Paine managed to influence and mobilize the entire developing nation. People who were originally unsure or indifferent about the American independence movement now possessed a mindset to either support or fight against America.  In this case, Britain failed to demonstrate capable leadership for its people. In this insurrectional replacement, there was to be a government established that was to be elected by the people and serve the needs of the people.

Snowden, famous for his exposure of mass government surveillance programs, explained that the leader of the country failed to inform the people to give their consent for such programs. At first, Snowden “believed in Obama’s promises”, but he changed his thoughts after he realized Obama was continuing “with the policies of his predecessor.” In Snowden’s view, the leader was not adhering with the Constitution he was bound to, and therefore felt that the real leader (the People) should be empowered to decide on the legality of the programs. He believed that such programs justified in secret courts would have a different outcome once tested in a public setting. His changes made people more aware of political issues and removed the curtain that hid unauthorized programs. In an article by Scott Shane for The New York Times, titled “Snowden Sees Some Victories, From a Distance”, Shane explains that Snowden’s actions were not done in vain. On May 7, 2015, a federal court ruled the bulk collection of call data to be illegal. Now besides ending the surveillance programs, Snowden proposed another policy change: to protect whistleblowers. He recommended the creation of “independent agencies staffed by civil liberties advocates” to work with other people with similar problems.

Why would Snowden advocate for the protection of whistleblowers from his temporary asylum in Russia? Is it merely to protect himself, or is it a movement towards a larger concept of pervasive freedom?  Is it because he had a “greater commitment to justice than a fear of the law”? In an attempt to move the nation towards a free world, Snowden lost many comforts of his life. He once lived in a nice house on Hawaii, with his girlfriend and family, and with a well-paid career position. He gave this up because of his commitment to the nation. See, Snowden had already encountered people before him in his workplace who were well aware of the illegitimacy of the programs. But for fear of losing their stable lifestyle, they chose not to blow the whistle. But then again, if Snowden really wanted support his movement, wouldn’t he return to America to accept his fate? If what he did was truly justified, then wouldn’t he be pardoned upon returning home? Why would he hide in Russia, under the wing of President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB officer and leader of a government not known for its transparency? Perhaps Mr. Snowden is a reasonable man, and doesn’t want to risk the rest of his life in jail. Where else would he hide? There are only a few countries where the American government cannot muscle its way around.

Powerful figures and spokespersons, like the former deputy director and acting director of the C.I.A., Michael J. Morell, feel that Snowden’s actions in no way could have helped or supported America. They say that this leaked information could be sent to enemies of the state, like the extremist ISIS group. In a blunt and denouncing statement, Morell said, “Americans may well die at the hands of terrorists because of Edward Snowden’s actions.” Political leaders like Morell will certainly have their way with Snowden if he were to return to the country. By and large, there are two sides to Snowden. Some view that what he has done to the country is treason, and he the villainous whistleblower. Others find that he is a hero of sorts, who has championed the people in modern times. But “I’m not a hero. I’m not a traitor. I’m an ordinary American like anyone else…” Snowden says. While this could be seen as disingenuous, Snowden is merely appealing to the people as one of them, and showing that any American can make a change in government.  We now live in a “post-Snowden” era where people fear for their safety and need leadership.

While the United States is one of the world’s oldest continual democracies, its birth came through a bloody fight – the American Revolution, somewhat inspired by Mr. Paine’s Common Sense. Americans know that the Constitution must be continually defended, otherwise it will be trampled upon, and democracy is always a fragile experiment. Other nations have struggled to achieve democracy, and still others have rejected it utterly, producing leaders who, because of their power and ideology, fall into regressive and abhorrent practices.

In the early twentieth century, Mahatma Gandhi was the leading figure in the push to full Indian sovereignty. Throughout the difficulties of revolution, Gandhi continued to preach resistance in the form of non-coöperation, nonviolence, and truth. He believed that nonviolence was “mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man” and he promoted the concept throughout his life. Starting in the early 1920s, Gandhi encouraged people to give up anything British, whether it be Western clothes, goods or jobs. He believed that Britain’s colonial grasp on India would loosen with acts of noncooperation. Following the Amritsar Massacre in 1919, Gandhi opposed responses such as riots and acts of violence against British citizens. He explained that violence of any kind was evil. Even with the threat of Direct Action, where Muslims feared persecution after Indian independence, and would fight back, Gandhi personally visited the areas with the highest tension in an attempt to prevent the genocide and horror that would follow. In each of these harrowing situations, Gandhi maintained his morals and continued to lead the nation through the troubles and traumas of independence from colonial rule.

Gandhi also had several personal relationships with world leaders. In a letter to Hitler, Gandhi presents himself as a friend and explains to Hitler that his methods of violence through science and technology can only be dominant temporarily: “If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon.” Accordingly, Gandhi proposed “to make an effort for peace” and hoped that Mussolini would do the same. Winston Churchill went so far as to call Gandhi a “Naked Fakir”, but nevertheless, Gandhi kindly asked Churchill to trust his ability to care for India.Even with people against his methods of resistance, Gandhi attempted to teach and move these people to different directions. Gandhi said himself, “I suppose leadership at one time meant muscles; but today it means getting along with people.” Leadership requires co-öperation between people to achieve their desires, and Gandhi worked with millions to achieve theirs peacefully, which is still playing out.

Gandhi contrasts Fish’s words with his life. His philosophy and his moral character was upheld throughout his leadership. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.” Violence was the dominant consensus for bringing about change, but Gandhi kneaded, pressed, and shaped an unyielding discourse into a philosophy that would leave behind a legacy for all to observe.

Joseph Stalin, on the contrary, was a leader of oppression. By attempting to tackle too many problems at once with too many strategies, Stalin’s policies failed to lead the Soviet Union out of post-war troubles. For instance, the Five-Year Plan forced immediate collectivization, labor, and industrialization onto an already struggling Soviet peasantry. Designed to target a minority of wealthy peasants (kulaks), collectivization led to the removal of majority of peasants who were not quite as wealthy as kulaks. In addition, Stalin’s plans included the forced labor of prisoners to support rapid industrialization. Working in dangerous conditions and terrible health, many died from the intense labor.

Stalin also had personal relationships with communist leaders, namely Kim Il-Sung and Mao Zedong. Stalin and Mao had an alliance against the Nationalist Guomingdang Party, which later led to the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance. Mao’s regime is widely known as oppressive. Perhaps there could be similarities drawn between Mao’s and Stalin’s rule.

One might argue that the over-ambitious goals, the lies of success, the famines, and the mass murder and deportation of peasants and politicians was all necessary in order to serve the best interests of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, I feel it was naturally all designed to maintain rapid industrialization and the rise of the nation as a global superpower.

But what can justify the massacre of millions? How can the devoid expressions of starving, impoverished children lead one to believe that the policies of oppression can be justified? We must rethink the qualities a political leader must possess to be successful. Stalin’s concern for revolt and dissent was so great that he killed and deported any counter-revolutionaries in the army and Communist Party. His actions were so atrocious that they are remembered in history as “The Great Purge”. Unlike Gandhi’s ideology, Stalin felt that he needed to consolidate power so his rule could not be questioned. However, Gandhi’s ideas were so motivating and popular among the people that power was given to him. He rose as leader because people willed him to. Stalin became a leader through ousting a competitor (Trotsky) and forcing people to accept him. Gandhi’s leadership is characterized as nonviolent while promoting passive resistance, but throughout Stalin’s rule, we see a movement towards force and a promotion of a single guiding principle. And on December 26, 1991, Stalin’s legacy dissolved as the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin.

Both Gandhi and Stalin attempted to lead their country in a time of turmoil. Gandhi managed to empower the people themselves and promote resistance in a nonviolent way. Leaders like Gandhi demonstrate that a simple, powerful principle can compel millions towards triumphing over a singularly desired goal. Stalin’s policies, though grand in theory, were brutal in execution and only led to a degenerating population. People like Thomas Paine and Edward Snowden place on us a collective responsibility, giving faith to citizens to address inconsistencies in the system, and then to elect a good leader and make fair decisions. They define and reveal who the incapable leaders are, and helped spark reform. They open the public eye to relevant issues and address them. But even after revolution and change, responsibility for national decisions will eventually boil down to the leaders the people elect themselves.