WHAT DO DENISE KNIGHT, SCOTT MORRISON AND DONALD TRUMP, HAVE IN COMMON?
Define leadership:
“the action of leading a group of people or an organization” – Oxford Languages.
It implies
- an agreement, by the majority, to be led.
- an act of taking people along a path which the majority will find acceptable.
- the willingness to use flexible thinking, to adapt to changing circumstances, to do right, rather than be
- the capacity to always keep foremost in the mind, the ultimate welfare of the people or organisation.
- the capacity to bring the people or organisation with you, rather than driving them before you.
Question: Do politicians have the capacity and/or the need to lead?
More Important Question: Are the following case studies truly representative of political leaders as a breed?
* * *
Case Study One:
D.J. Trump, former President of The United States and now, deposed King of the World.
331 000 000 Americans can’t be wrong. America is the greatest and most powerful country in the world. (It has the most weapons, and the most destructive weapons. It has the will to use these against people who annoy it.)
The leader of the greatest and most powerful country in the world is, therefore, the most powerful leader in the world. (He is the Commander-in -Chief of the most powerful army in the world. He has the capacity to destroy the world through the use of his superior weaponry. He can choose the process of destruction, either piecemeal or instant and total.)
The President of the United States also rules, by default, as the King of the World.
Donald Trump once held both of these positions, the first by election, the second by assumption.
Being the Leader of The Free World carries with it certain responsibilities. It implies “an agreement, by the majority, to be led”. In this case, the majority has little choice. If you are smaller and tactically weaker, militarily, you will agree, rather than choose, to be led, because the negative consequences for failing to agree, outweigh those for agreeing to agree.
It implies “an act of taking people along a path which the majority will find acceptable”. In this case, the majority has little choice. If you are smaller and tactically weaker, politically and militarily, you will agree, even if your ideals do not strongly correspond to those of the management. In numerous cases, nations whose political and cultural ideals do not match those of the management, have been encouraged by means of military invasion, to review their beliefs, and then to conform to the ideals of the management.
It implies “the willingness to use flexible thinking, to adapt to changing circumstances, to do right, rather than be right”. In this case, the Leader of The Free World has the absolute power to make his thinking right, by dint of his might.
It implies “the capacity to always keep foremost in the mind, the ultimate welfare of the people or organisation”. In this case, what is right for the Leader of The Free World, is right for the Free World, and the Not So Free World, as well. The POTUS, (an acronym which has a certain mild sibilance, an unfortunate collocation to the words “poultice” and “potty”, and a somewhat “yukky” feel), has the power to determine what is in the best interests of the people of the world.
It implies “the capacity to bring the people or organisation with you, rather than driving them before you”. In this case the POTUS, and LOTFW (it’s a bit awkward, and doesn’t trip from the tongue as smoothly as does POTUS, but it saves a shitload of keystrokes), has no need to bring his people or organisation with him, because it’s easier, and possible, to drive them.
So, that’s the background on the positions of POTUS and LOTFW. How does Donald fare, if assessed in relation to the criteria implied by the word, “leadership”?
If we were to score him, out of ten, on each of the suggested criteria, with a zero rating reflecting abject and total failure to lead, and ten describing admired, respected and successful leadership, and you are prepared to rate him at anything more than two out of ten on any criterion, stop reading this immediately, because, for you the rest won’t be pretty.
Criterion One: securing an agreement, by the majority, to be led.
It is may be fair to suggest that, in the period immediately prior to his election, the socio-political situation in the USA was at a very low ebb. It might even have been comparable, in its effect upon the population’s morale, to the situation in pre-Hitler Germany. Disaffection was palpable.
Ordinary people could see the already obscenely rich becoming even wealthier, at their expense. The subprime mortgage debacle, and the Global Financial Crisis which it created, was still having a huge impact. The abject failure of government to meet the economic and social needs of ordinary people, as reflected in events such the incredible mismanagement of the New Orleans disaster, and the social crisis created by racial inequality, were just some of the causes of a decline in social optimism.
Into this environment came a billionaire property developer and television celebrity. Those were the two attributes which fitted Donald for stardom, as the POTUS.
In the USA money doesn’t just talk. If there’s enough of it, in the one place, at the one time, it positively screams. By spending billions, there is almost nothing which cannot be achieved.
Whether Donald has the rat cunning required to assess and then victimise a swathe of disadvantaged people, or whether he was seconded by a powerful cadre to act as their figure head in a game of social and economic manipulation, is a moot point. The outcome, however, is clear. Donald got the gig.
Score him one out of ten, because he actually got elected, if only by default.
Criterion Two: taking people along a path which the majority will find acceptable.
The majority of Americans, at least the majority of those who voted, expected Donald to lead them to the Promised Land. He had told them he would, and politicians don’t tell lies, do they?
How do we explain the election, by tens of millions of people, of someone who was so patently unsuitable for the job? What would lead a country to make such a godawful stuff-up?
Donald had, and has, no redeeming qualities as a person, or as a politician. His one claim to a positive attribute, might just lie in his consistency.
He lies consistently.
He abuses consistently.
He expresses racist views consistently.
He displays elitist behaviours consistently.
He insults the intelligence of his audience consistently.
He performs publicly, in his persona as a buffoon, consistently.
He single-handedly diminishes the quality of human nature consistently.
It cannot be true that the vast majority of Americans saw Trump as a credible candidate for POTUS and LOTFW status. More than 300 000 000 people could not possibly have made that mistake simultaneously.
So, how did he get elected?
Donald’s minders cleverly targeted the disadvantaged and disenfranchised, in a world where capitalism denies ordinary people any semblance of social justice. They enticed these people to act, and these people acted. They voted, some of them, perhaps, for the first time in their lives.
Meanwhile, the apathetic, and the people who were too busy trying to survive to be forming political opinion and taking political action, and the dreamers who said “Nah, this is America. A dick like Trump could never be elected here”, chose not get off their arses and vote.
We saw the result, and for four years, the entire world was subjected to the result. Trump’s ideology, whether it’s his by nature, or implanted by his minders, has resonated with radical fascists, racists, denialists and conspiracy theorists, who have then, by virtue of the work of Donald’s media manipulators, influenced millions of others who might never have seriously considered the reactionary views espoused by the POTUS, and broadcast interminably to the masses, via Twitter and media organisations sympathetic to the cause.
Score him one out of ten, because he led some of the people, some of the time, along paths which some of them chose to tread. The non-voters, probably people who were sure that no-one like Donald could ever be elected POTUS, were probably wishing that they had voted against him.
Criterion Three: “the willingness to use flexible thinking, to adapt to changing circumstances, to do right, rather than be right”.
What is right for Donald, is right. The ultimate narcissist could never contemplate the possibility of being wrong, and Donald will go down in The History of Narcissism, as the biggest and best, of the biggest and best. When it comes to self-delusion, Donald is The Master, so, apart from political expedience, there could be no reason for him to change his views, or to consider that he was ever even remotely capable of doing something wrong.
Score him zero out of ten, because he doesn’t even know how to be wrong.
Criterion Four: “the capacity to always keep foremost in the mind, the ultimate welfare of the people or organisation”.
Please refer to Criterion Three.
Criterion Five: “the capacity to bring the people or organisation with you, rather than driving them before you”.
Tell people what they want to hear. Tell them loudly, stridently. Tell them often. Employ sycophants to say the same things that you say, loudly and often. Select individuals and groups who show the capacity to repeat your message, and support them, in every possible way, to carry that message to a wider audience.
Convince The People that you believe what they believe, even if they didn’t know beforehand that they believed it, and they’ll follow you anywhere.
Donald is an absolute past master of the use of lies and deception to pray upon the fears and aspirations of The People, who ultimately flock, with violence aforethought, to do his bidding. He becomes Adolph. He becomes The Messiah.
Is, or was, Donald Trump capable of “political leadership”? No.
Score him five out of ten for this criterion, because he managed to bring tens of millions with him, even if it was into a situation which was very close to anarchy.
Case Study Two:
Scott (Scomo) Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia, Minister for Obfuscation, Minister for Deception, Minister for Diversion, Minister for Scott Morrison, and Minster for Getting Scott Morrison Re-elected. With all of those portfolios of responsibility, he’s busier than a pork-barreller, prior to an election.
Compared to The King of the World (KOTW), the POTUS and LOTFW (all the same dude), Scotty is extremely small change, their close personal relationship notwithstanding.
Australia, about 25 000 000 people, and a military force just about powerful enough to resist an attack upon our island, always provided that they are not busy fighting an American war in a foreign country.
Now, at what point do the concepts “Scott Morrison” and “leadership”, coincide?
Let’s use the same rating strategy as was applied to Donald:
Criterion One: securing an agreement, by the majority, to be led.
Scotty managed this one, largely by lying about the dangers of electing his opponent. Scare tactics centred around the alleged loss of jobs in Queensland, were enough to get him home. It’s a scumbag tactic, perfected by the likes of John Howard, but it works and both parties do it.
Score him four out of ten, because the opposition wasn’t great.
Criterion Two: taking people along a path which the majority will find acceptable.
Donald had the advantage in this area. He had millions of disaffected people whom he was able to whip into a frenzy with his lies and false accusations. Within those millions, he also had a significant group of lunatics, fascists, racists and anarchists, which he was able to motivate to do some very threatening things, like invading their equivalent of our Parliament House, and threatening the lives of certain politicians.
Scomo doesn’t have that option. Most Australians are pretty “normal”. Our two-party system, which is technically a three-party system, in which the Nationals in coalition do nothing much more than make up the numbers, and produce people like Barnaby Joyce, is pretty moderate in nature. The fruitcakes in our country are very few, and can be found with Pauline Hanson in One Nation, which is as close to a white-supremacist group as you’ll get in Australia.
We once had to own a fairly visible Nazi Party, but that group has either gone underground, or are now all in the ground.
So, on any given day, depending upon who can get away with the most credible lies and frighten the electorate the most, we either end up with an LNP coalition of right-wing conservatives, or a Labor Party government, filled with raging communists, all chafing at the bit to send the rich to a gulag in Central Australia.
In reality, there’s not much to differentiate one mob from the other. In simplistic terms, Scomo’s lot look after the wealthy, and couldn’t care less about the poorer end of the street, whilst Labor, if they can find a leader who can actually deliver a speech without sending the audience to sleep, might look after the less-wealthy, whilst also pandering to the rich – if they can get away with it.
Most Australians will go along with moderate behaviour from both sides of politics, and only get really antsy when something extreme, like allegations of rape or major rorting of public money, occurs. Even then, when election time comes around, we tend to forget about the crap behaviour which has gone on during the preceding four years.
Score him three out of ten, because Australians are easily led.
Criterion Three: “the willingness to use flexible thinking, to adapt to changing circumstances, to do right, rather than be right”.
Here’s where Morrison really stuffs up.
Flexible thinking and Scomo don’t inhabit the same space. He’s a believer in the power of the Great God Economy to cure all the ills of the world. Nothing else matters.
If the economy is strong, the country is good, even if that strong economy comes at the expense of the seriously disadvantaged sector of the community, where the unemployed (lazy bastards), homeless (tell them to get a job and pay rent) and destitute (no one is Australia is destitute – they’re just bludgers who want to live on Centrelink payments and still buy booze and drugs), survive.
Adapting to changing circumstances, slightly, is something that Scotty will do, if it suits his political purpose. As far as significant and meaningful change is concerned, the best we’ll get from Morrison, is lip-service. Even then, it will only come as a response to savage public criticism.
Score him two out of ten, because any flexibility which he demonstrates, is a cynical exercise in getting back credibility which has previously thrown away.
Criterion Four: “the capacity to always keep foremost in the mind, the ultimate welfare of the people or organisation”.
Oh, my MOB (Mythical Omnipotent Being)! If we alter this criterion to read “the capacity to always keep foremost in the mind, the ultimate welfare of Scott Morrison”, he’ll score ten out of ten.
Scomo has no concept of the welfare of anyone other than himself, and his believers. How has this failing affected Scotty’s ability to lead?
Morrison has been the public face of Climate Change Denial, leading the debate from a purely economic rationalist, tinged with a hint of marketing, perspective. He led a piece of coal into the parliament and, in the safety of the House, laughed at those who question his position.
He led himself and his family on holiday to other shores, in the midst of a national bushfire crisis.
He led himself and his mates to “the footy”, when the national impact of a world-wide health crisis was minutes away. He led the nation to believe that a pandemic would not adversely affect us, much, at all, really, when you think about it.
He led us to believe that the crisis in Aged Care, revealed by the deaths of clients in homes affected by Covid, was not really a Federal Government problem, despite the fact that the Feds hold the Aged Care purse and make the Aged Care rules.
He led the nation to believe that “there’s nothing to see here”, when Angus Taylor falsely and maliciously attacked Clover Moore, using fabricated evidence. He then led Angus to a quiet corner of the room, from which he has barely emerged, but in which he has been able to continue to thrive.
He led the nation to believe that Bridget McKenzie, in the first instance, had not rorted the allocation of sports funds, and then, in the second instance, was solely responsible for rorting the allocation of sports funds. He then led Bridget to the back bench.
He has since led the nation to believe that he knew nothing about the alleged sexual assault of a Liberal staffer, or about the prevailing “anti-women” culture which seems to exist in Parliament House.
Finally, at the time of writing, he has led us to understand that, as a leader, Scomo, knows nothing much, about a whole lot. Is his ignorance about the behaviour of his parliamentary and party colleagues, due to his failure to lead by knowing, or is it due to a policy of telling his parliamentary and party colleagues that he doesn’t want to know about anything nasty, so that he later can say, when questioned, that he didn’t know about anything nasty, and thereby excuse his inaction? It’s a deliberate political strategy called “plausible deniability” or “wilful blindness”.
Score him one out of ten, and then only because he can actually identify the nasty things which he wishes to ignore.
Criterion Five: “the capacity to bring the people or organisation with you, rather than driving them before you”.
This he can do, somewhat. However, he only applies this skill in small scale situations, in which he can profit from having others along for the ride, and in which he only has to deal with people whose approval he already has, because it’s their job to approve of him.
Even then, it is foolish to believe that Morrison does not drive his colleagues to do his bidding, despite his apparent claims to the contrary. Scomo rules the Liberal Party. Evidence the back-bench status of McKenzie, the reluctance of Taylor to draw any attention to himself, the failure of his Ministers and Department Heads to officially advise him of critical matters, and his willingness to require his colleagues to save him from censure by crying “mea culpa”. Plausible deniability or deliberate blindness aside, Morrison sucks as a leader because he’s always watching his own back, and it’s impossible to lead anybody anywhere when you’re not looking ahead.
He failed to show leadership in the bushfire crisis.
He pretended to show leadership in the Covid crisis, and left the real leadership to the state premiers.
He will fail to show leadership with respect to women in parliament, and in the patently necessary need for cultural change there.
Score him one of ten, and then only because he can actually convince his colleagues of the need for him to remain squeaky clean.
Case Study Three:
Why would anybody suggest that Donny Trump (330 000 000 people), Scomo (25 000 000 people) and Denise Knight (78 000 people), could possibly be compared?
I’m not even trying to compare the personalities – I’m asking a question about political leadership.
The principles of leadership are universal. They need to be understood, and put into practise if effective leadership is to occur. I can compare these three from the point of view of leadership, without needing to examine their personalities.
Denise Knight is a mayor in a large regional town. (She’ll probably tell you it’s a city – it sounds more important to be mayor of a city.) Currently she’s embroiled in a controversy over a plan to build new council offices, disguised as an administrative and cultural centre.
A town, or city, mayor is an elected official who makes certain promises in order to become elected. Implicit in seeking election is the promise to lead. Some do it well (current Mayor of The City of Sydney, Clover Moore, seems to be one of those) , some are mediocre, and some fail miserably. We’ll see how Denise Knight fares by applying the same method used to assess D.J. and Scotty.
Criterion One: securing an agreement, by the majority, to be led.
At the time of writing, Denise is only Mayor because the NSW State Government made the ridiculous decision to postpone council elections for 12 months, due to Covid. Had an election for Coffs Harbour City Council been held last September, when it was due, it is almost certain that Denise would have been out on her ear. The reason? Abysmal failure to lead.
Score zero for this criterion.
Criterion Two: taking people along a path which the majority will find acceptable.
Oh, my MOB! Catastrophic fail!
Our garbage is exported to other towns because Denise’s council has failed to plan ahead. It costs a bomb.
Our airport was leased to a private company because Denise’s council couldn’t find a manager.
We can’t have major performing artists work indoors.
The general condition of our local government area (LGA) is attracting large numbers of complaints.
We’re supposed to be attracting tourists but we have no Tourist Information Centre.
After allegedly consulting the community (possibly by asking selected questions of selected community members, who were certain to give the desired answers), Denise, and probably council officials, decided that the promised performing arts/entertainment space would not go ahead, but that they would build a new edifice containing new council offices, an art gallery, museum and library.
It would be a glorious structure, located in an aesthetically barren landscape. The prevailing streetscape could not possibly rise to meet the status of the new arrival, but it could certainly detract from the newcomer’s presence.
Upon publication of the plan, the peasants (that’s an implied, by Knight’s cohort, rather than actual characterisation) revolted. Whilst almost universally happy to have new cultural spaces, community members rejected Knight’s strategy of seeking to obtain a new mayoral office by stealth. More than 15 000 signed a petition against the mayor’s plan and 800 plus went to the extent of submitting formal submissions against it.
Denise ignored both actions and, despite finding four opponents out of the council complement of eight councillors, (that’s a fifty-fifty split) she charged ahead.
How significant is this petition?
It’s important for two reasons.
Petitions are like icebergs. You only see the tip.
The signatories are those who feel angry enough to get out of their chairs, locate a document in a public place, and sign it. They are, with certainty, not the only community members who are against the project. With more than 15 000 angry enough to sign, it is highly likely, if not absolutely certain, that there are another 15 000 who were just as angry or marginally less so, who just didn’t get to sign the petition. From there, with diminishing degrees of anger, ranging from extremely annoyed to basically pissed off, there may be thousands more opponents of the idea.
The petition against the mayor’s new offices, may well represent more than 35 000 actual opponents of the scheme.
With a voting population of well under 50 000 people, that number represents a huge majority of disaffected citizens.
Has Denise chosen to take people along a path which the majority will find acceptable? Not bloody likely.
Score zero for this criterion.
Criterion Three: “the willingness to use flexible thinking, to adapt to changing circumstances, to do right, rather than be right”.
Denise’s behaviour, particularly since the publication of the plan to build herself a new office, has shown a capacity to use flexible thinking, and to adapt to changing circumstances, and responding to the peasants’ revolt would require both talents.
The right and proper thing to do, would have been to survey the community to get a definitive answer to a question around the resistance to her plan. It would have been a simple and inexpensive task. Armed with the data from this survey, she could have withdrawn with dignity from her proposal, and sought acceptable alternatives.
However, faced with a deadlock in council, which would have scuttled her plan for a new office, with some attached cultural spaces, Denise adapted to the circumstances and used her casting vote as mayor, in a most flexible manner. It was inappropriate, unacceptable, unprincipled, unscrupulous, unconscionable, unethical, immoral, against all democratic convention, and just plain wrong – despite being technically legal.
Denise’s need to be right, was greater than her need to do right.
Score two out of ten for this criterion. In this situation it’s far easier to be flexible than it is to do the right thing.
Criterion Four: “the capacity to always keep foremost in the mind, the ultimate welfare of the people or organisation”.
Fail, fail, fail, fail!
Denise wants a monument to mark her time as Mayor of Coffs Harbour. She wants a new mayoral office, even though, as a result of her behaviour in driving the process to secure this goal, she’ll certainly never get to use it.
The wishes and needs of the community are irrelevant.
The wishes and needs of Denise Knight are paramount.
Score zero out of ten for this criterion. Narcissism prevails.
Criterion Five: “the capacity to bring the people or organisation with you, rather than driving them before you”.
It will be apparent to any observer that Denise Knight’s approach to people and community management is essentially dictatorial.
Bringing people with you requires full and proper initial consultation, ongoing consultation, total transparency and the willingness to listen to and act upon the wishes of a community.
Denise, at best, pays lip-service to these requirements. A deliberately flawed community consultation process, and the willingness to ignore vital and emerging facts, have set Denise apart from all but a few community members, so much so that she will inevitably be rejected at the next council election.
Denise has allowed her desires to override those of the community that she allegedly serves.
Score zero out of ten for this criterion. Being a self-centred can reduce your chances of communicating effectively with other folk.
The Results:
If my maths is correct, and I really hope it is, Donald has scored 7 out of 50. Scomo managed 11, and I was quite surprised by that. Denise recorded a miserable 2 out of 50, which wasn’t at all surprising.
So, back to the initial question: Do politicians have the capacity and/or the need to lead?
Yes, I know that, in a world full of potential swans, I’ve chosen to assess three turkeys. They may have been elected to lead, but each is clearly incapable.
There are outstanding leaders on the world stage. Jacinda Ardern and Angela Merkel seem to get the gongs as two of the best.
In Australia, we have some State Premiers who appear to be doing a good job, in very trying Covid-19 circumstances. It’s a terrible shame that the Prime Minister lacks their abilities and their level of understanding that leadership involves making decisions with the interests of community in mind. It’s not just about getting and staying elected.
On the whole there are probably some politicians in this world who are capable of providing leadership, but even more who will make most, if not all, of their decisions as “leaders”, to advance their own cause.
As far as commonality is concerned, Denise, Scotty and Donny share one undeniable similarity. As leaders, they are all abject failures.
