Leadership Style Influences National Governance

Transformational leadership is a Jesus-inspired and research-supported solution to federal conflict. An increase in the use of transformational leadership will continue to fuel the movement toward reducing the size of government. Those who have tried to increase government have been frustrated by their loss of control, as exemplified by their over-the-top opposition to the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. The reason for the decrease in the influence of leftists is their relatively ineffective style of leadership.

The leadership style used by leftists is called transactional. The terms transactional leadership and transforming leadership were introduced by Burns (1978), who based his leadership theory on a study of historical figures. Burns said the transactional leader looks to exchange one thing for another: jobs for votes, or subsidies for campaign contributions (Burns, 1978, p.4). In contrast, Burns said the transforming leader seeks to engage the full person of the follower, sharing in the development of mutual values and goals.

Transactional leadership fits with a Behaviorist view of humans. While other schools of psychology were acknowledged during my Bachelor’s studies at Colorado State University from 1969-1973, by far the dominant school of thought presented was Behaviorist as advocated by B. F. Skinner. In his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity Skinner (1971) said that nothing of significance dwells within a human. What matters is a person’s behavior. Using the principle of stimulus-response a person’s behavior can be controlled. In order to change people, change their environment. The most visible arena for change is government.

I define a leftist as a person who works toward an increased role for government. On a political scale, the further people are to the left the more governmental control they advocate. At the furthest to the left is totalitarianism—total governmental rule.

When it comes to the political right, some obfuscate the matter by claiming that Hitler was from the right. That is incorrect. Hitler was just as much a leftist dictator as Stalin. Hitler and Stalin were peas from the same pod. The far right is anarchy and step back from there is libertarianism. Many of the founding American revolutionaries were libertarians. Conservatives are on the middle right of the political spectrum and liberals are on the middle left. From 1787 to 1980, American government has generally been on a journey of more government, with a pause during the presidency of Calvin Coolidge. For the past few decades Republicans have been moving further to the right and Democrats have been moving further to the left.

A Brief History of Why the Left Is Desperate

The Kavanaugh confirmation hearing brought to light a lack of civility in an institution that has a reputation for polite debate. The rancor in American politics today raises the question of whether or not civility is even possible at this time when different segments of society have such opposite and intense views.

The first step in looking for a solution is to understand the context of the political divide between the political left and right. The history of the United States from 1787 to 1960, with an exception in the 1920s, was one of expansion of government. Even during the Civil War there was a measure of decorum in Washington, D.C. President John Kennedy said we should look more to what we could do to serve our country rather than seeing what we could get from the government. He engineered a tax cut that along with his optimistic attitude contributed to a prosperous economy. The election in 1964 revealed the beginnings of a more ambitious reduction in the size of government. Its candidate Barry Goldwater was soundly defeated by Lyndon Johnson and government was expanded in his Great Society. Federal government deliberations were civil in part because there was no opposition. The conservatives did not even control the Republican party at that time. President Richard Nixon not only did not work to cut back the Great Society, he expanded government through the Earned Income Tax credit, as well as establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The general agreement in the march toward bigger government was obscured by the Viet Nam War and Watergate. Those were not particularly Democratic versus Republican issues. Republicans and Democrats alike criticized both. After the resignation of Nelson Rockefeller, when President Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to be Vice President, members of the House from both parties stood and cheered.

As Ronald Reagan pursued the presidency he helped grow the conservative side of the Republican segment of the Republican party into a majority. Nearly half of Republicans supported business as usual with Ford. As Reagan served as president conservatives who wanted to reign in government began to enjoy a solid majority in the Republican party.

The split aided Jimmy Carter to win the presidency. Civility remained. High interest rates coupled with a disastrous economy led to Reagan winning the presidency. Despite their huge political differences, Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neil decided to work with Reagan to give the president what he wanted in hopes that disaster would follow and the conservative experiment would end. A measure of prosperity returned and conservatism dominated Republican politics. Even a few Democrats moved toward the right.

President Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich worked together on welfare reform which corrected some of the abuses of the Great Society and aided a prosperous economy.

President George W. Bush was elected on a platform of continuing Reagan’s smaller government agenda while compassionately maintaining social programs. President Bush remained willing to compromise with the Democratic larger government proponents even though they ridiculed him. He turned his cheek so many times that he became faceless. This is where the level of uncivility began to rise. The larger government politicians despised Bush’s Reagonite philosophy. Bush expected support from conservatives but they turned away, expecting him to defend himself. No one called the left on their horrible treatment of President Bush.

President Bush was civil, but it did not gain him anything but disdain from the left and the right. The middle did not know what to make of it. At least they were quiet.

Politics were civil during Barak Obama’s presidency. His calm demeanor belied a radical leftist agenda. Obama broke the long standing peace over abortion. The Hyde amendment permitted abortion but restricted its federal funding. During this time Republicans quietly advocated an agenda right of center. An example of civility in 2009 was the Senate’s confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Senators were complimented for the respect shown to the nominee, even though questioning was pointed.

The uncivil attack on Judge Kavanaugh was not wise politically. Until then the left had successfully enlisted establishment Republicans to oppose President Trump. Judge Kavenaugh was an establishment conservative, an Ivy League educated former member of the Bush administration. Bush came out of his self-imposed exile to advocate for his former aide.

Leftists Could Become Civil With A Change in Leadership Style

From a cursory look at news a person might assign equal blame to conservatives and liberals for Washington, D.C. lack of civility. However, the Kavanaugh hearings exposed the left’s desperate tactics in the face of losing power. Transactional leadership power tactics degenerated an attempt at brute force. The force tactic is continuing with the governmental shutdown precipitated by the Democratic refusal to fund expansion of the border wall with Mexico.

Hillary Clinton and many others were appalled at their loss in 2016. How could that happen? The left controls the majority of the news media, the entertainment industry, more wealthy donors. They have a larger influence in K-12 education and academia. With all of those environmental advantages how could their influence be diminished by an anti big government movement. The answer is in anemic style of leadership. Americans are not moved by power. Americans respond to relational leadership and persuasion. Over the past few decades conservatives have presented more persuasive arguments in a way that resonates with a majority of Americans. The leftist promises of more benefits is diminished by the increasing number of people who are asked to pay for those benefits.

On the other side a major force is churches. Eighty percent of evangelical Christians voted for President Trump. Why are churches around at all, given the intellectual assault of Marx, Darwin, and Freud? The answer is that preaching and listening to sermons is not as ineffective as it might appear if it were true that nothing of significance is going on inside peoples’ craniums. Actually, more is going on inside the pew sitter’s head than what they might have for lunch. The Bible, which comprises the basis for most sermons, provides answers to life’s basic questions. Preachers provide content that satisfies the need for inspiration that is a part of transformational leadership. Also, pastors spend time with their congregants enhancing the impact of their message. People who are willing to accept responsibility for their own actions are less prone to want direction from the government.

Transformational leadership has taken over most successful businesses. Those entrepreneurs have become more attracted to governmental leaders who display that same style over the politician who offers them special favors if elected.

The way for leftists to increase their influence is to become more transformational, which includes becoming more relational which includes being more civil.

When the Right Is Not Right

After the civil war, drunkenness was a serious problem in America. It became customary for a man to go to a saloon after work, neglecting and sometimes abusing his family. A movement began to shut down saloons. As the movement gained steam, those most radical gravitated to the top and they pushed for total prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Americans passed a constitutional amendment to end the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages effective January 16, 1920. Enforcement of prohibition was extremely difficult because such a large population kept on consuming alcohol. Above our ranch there is a coal seem. Where the narrow valleys intersect that seem I have found old stoves, where I assume our predecessors distilled their alcohol. In 1933 prohibition was ended and the Protestant right moved away from politics.

In 1980 a mom started Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. In a short time MADD convinced state legislators to go after intoxicated drivers. Since that time fatalities from impaired drivers has been cut in half. The movement was so successful and has become so ingrained in our culture that we do not even think of doing away with drunk driving laws. A system of required sobriety classes for offenders has helped many to lead more productive lives. MADD did more to control the drunkenness problem than prohibition.

Moral Legislation

Some people embrace the saying, “You can’t legislate morality.” That sentiment may have been a result of the failed ban on alcohol. There is some truth to the statement. When the American founders set up a minimalistic government, John Adams said that such a system was dependent on a moral people. It was totally inadequate for any other. However, government must be in sync with the people’s morals. We do not want an immoral government.

The first government was instituted by God after the flood when he told Noah and his family that they were to take the life of anyone who killed another human. That was a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and a small government at that—not even one full-time governmental employee. Moses set up a small government to handle disputes. The Old Testament prophets did not operate out of physical power. They operated out of persuasion. Honest persuasion is at the heart of transformational leadership. Jesus was the ultimate transformational leader.

Francis Schaffer was a popular Christian philosopher who initiated a campaign for Protestants to join the Catholics in their quest to outlaw abortion. The pro-life movement is associated with conservatives, even thought it calls for an expansion of government. The left is more consistent in this area. They want an expansion of government to pay for their contraceptives, which in their view includes abortion.

The right is right that abortion is immoral, just as the taking of any innocent life is wrong. To the extent that pro-lifers have used transformational leadership to oppose abortion through pregnancy resource centers and education we have won. To the extent that some advocate the full force of government to eliminate taking any live after conception they have found it slow-going even against the most hideous forms of late-term abortion.

The MADD movement influenced our culture’s morality through a minimum of legislation. To swing the left more to our way of thinking, pro-lifers must find a similar position, that enables the enforcement of a ban on the most objectionable late-term abortions while maintaining privacy in the doctor’s office and the home. Refusing to pay for contraceptives and abortion is consistent with the right form of government. The American founders said they wanted to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The present generations of Americans must be persuaded to recommit to those goals.

Countering the Secularization of America

The first amendment to the US Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….” Notice that the constitution does not say “to establish religion”. It says “respecting an establishment of religion.” In other words the Congress is to stay out of the issue of religion establishment. If a religion becomes pervasive fine, if it diminishes fine. Congress is not to help or hinder religious exercise. Congress is the only entity given law-making authority at the national level. How much less authority does the Supreme Court which was not given any law-making authority. The Congress and the Supreme Court together have zero authority to keep prayer and Bible reading either in or out of schools.

At the urging of the American Civil Liberties Union, judges have been violating the plain sense of the the First Amendment by complicitly working with the left to remove Christianity from American culture. Now that we may have a majority of Supreme Court justices who believe in being guided by the constitution rather than by progressive dogma we could unravel the mess. We do not need legislation either to encourage or discourage Christian expression. We need the government to stay out of it. If a coach wants to lead his team in prayer before a game, he should be allowed to do so. If a coach does not want to lead his team in prayer he should be free to refrain. If a history teacher wants to compare David with other ancient kings she should be free to do so. If she does not, Congress should not tell her otherwise. If a literature teacher would like her students to read the story of Joseph, she should be free to do so or not if she does not so choose. This issue does not have to be complicated—just role back the court cases since 1960 that removed prayer and the Bible from schools. The breath of fresh air that such a policy would facilitate would revive the minds of students who have become dull in their ability to learn. The decline in standardized test scores correlates with removing public prayer and the Bible from schools.

A research-supported practice of helping students to find an underlying purpose has been found to provide motivation for students to do well in courses as they plan their learning toward accomplishing that purpose. A purpose can be something that students enjoy such as music, art or a vocation. At the present time, an overall purpose cannot be discussed. This limits the motivation a student might have for learning. Why should an accidental mass of tissue, subject to a deteriorating environment have any interest in learning algebra?

Madeline O’Hare defined herself by her opposition to Christianity. Atheists today have less to define themselves against. Out of ignorance they might even support the same thing as Christians—how embarrassing.

For more articles click on the Leadership Blog in the upper right menu. To comment please use the form below.