Lincoln at Gettysburg

With 272 words, Abraham Lincoln remade America. Garry Wills' book starts off with a seemingly impossible premise, one that looks more and more possible as the book goes on. The nation was at what could be called one of the lowest points in its history, and it needed a leader to step up and make sense out of all that was taking place. Lincoln's oration was an ancillary event of the day and did not give any indication that it would take on the significance that it holds today. When thought about in the proper historical context, The Gettysburg Address can give chills to any American. Garry Wills deftly illustrates the nuance and power that were likely lost on the typical attendant of the speeches that day.

The context of the speech rather than the actual text of the work composes much of the early part of Wills' work. In the 19th Century, a Greek revival was taking place in the United States. The obvious parallel that Wills wastes no time drawing is to Pericles' funeral oration. Since Greek thought and ideas were prevalent at the time, most people present would have no trouble recognizing this. I imagine it would be an eerie feeling at the time watching Lincoln's speech with the thought of Pericles looming in your mind. Both men stepped up to guide their countries through difficult times and provide visible leadership. To be able to make a powerful speech is an important quality for a leader to have. To be able to do it when the ones you are leading need it the most is invaluable. Although both Lincoln and Pericles are both well regarded orators, their most famous and most important speeches took place in some of the darkest times. That speaks volumes about them as leaders. I think that the Greek word logoslergon from Wills' breakdown of Lincoln's speech perfectly captures the crux of what he is trying to say: "The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here."

The other part of context for the Gettysburg Address that Wills discusses is the culture of death at the time. He goes into depth talking about the American Cemetery movement that was happening. Basically, towns would construct lavish rural cemeteries outside of their limits and invite speakers to come for the dedication ceremony. The other part of this culture of death that Wills is sure to mention is a respect for those who appeared to be or actually were depressed. Lincoln was a brooding man, especially during his time as President. His typical nature was exacerbated by the personal tragedies that befell him in the last few years of his life. Although depressed people are not typically looked up to in our time, during the mid 19th Century Lincoln's demeanor was considered to be an admirable quality. This may seem on the surface to not be a common quality of a leader. Who wants a leader who walks around sad all the time. To me, that may be one of the more impressive attributes about Lincoln: he fought through some of the darkest periods in our nation's history while dealing with death and illness in his immediate family.

Most importantly, Abraham Lincoln subtly infused into our nation the values that HE wanted it to have. I don't know anyone who would dare to call the Gettysburg Address revisionist history, but as Wills says, "The Civil War is, to most Americans, what Lincoln wanted it to mean." Wills talks about Lincoln's "deceptively simple sounding phrases" and goes so far as to call the speech "a stunning verbal coup." He almost makes it sound like Lincoln tricked people with mind games. And that, in my opinion, is the single most important quality that a leader can have. In the least menacing way possible, a leader's job is to get people to do what he wants them to do. Often times, efforts to this end will be met with resistance. What better way to get someone to do what you want than to do it without their knowing? With 272 words, Lincoln infused his personal beliefs about the values of the nation into the national consciousness. Stripping away Garry Wills' complex analysis about the context of the speech and what it meant in its time, Lincoln was a leader because he stepped up when needed and got the people around him to believe and do exactly what he wanted.

Leadership in the NFL Lockout

What is going on right now in the NFL is not unprecedented. All the major sports leagues, most recently the NHL, have had to deal with work stoppages in the last twenty years. The dominance that the NFL has enjoyed in the American professional sports world means that there is a great deal at stake here for the league. If these negotiations are prolonged into the season and games are missed, the NFL's status as the premier sports league in the world could be in jeopardy. This is where the leaders on both sides become important. Although hundreds of players and thousands of NFL employees have much at stake here, the negotiations will mainly take place between a few player representatives, team owners, and Roger Goodell.

The players are at a significant disadvantage in the negotiations. First and most importantly, if there are no games, they do not get paid. Many of the players have saved enough of their money to last through some time of a work stoppage, but there are others in the league who literally live paycheck to paycheck due to their extravagant lifestyles. The owners know that the players need games to be played much more desperately than they do. And so it falls on men like DeMaurice Smith, NFLPA executive director; George Atallah, NFLPA exec; and various player representatives to lead the players through this difficult time. One of the biggest challenges for them will be fostering communication within such a large and diverse group. Unlike the owners who only have to worry about the interests of thirty-two wealthy men, the players are a group of around 1700 men varying in age and income who have very different goals for this process. The decertification of the union represents a further distancing of this group. That idea served better as a threat than an actual tool to implement. The leaders on the labor side of the negotiations certainly have their work cut out for them.

The NFL owners have the enviable position in the labor talks. It has been estimated that they have the money to last a full two years without a single game being played. However, their finances did take a small blow from the recent judicial decision that TV rights fees will not be paid if there are no games. Leadership within the group of owners is significant but not nearly as important as it is for the players. These thirty-two men are mostly similar and have the same goals in the labor talks. With this uniformity of the group, leaders will not have the same task of fostering cohesion throughout the negotiations.

The most important and most obvious leader throughout this whole process is Roger Goodell. He is the one who will be looked at to maintain a calm about the league's future. Although he tries to present himself as somewhat of a mediator between the two sides, Goodell certainly has some interests aligned with the owners. His job is to ensure the success of the league. In almost all instances, success is measured by profit. One of the big ways that the league can create profit is to add two more regular season games, something that is universally opposed by the players. Another way is to limit the amount of money that they players receive from broadcasting contracts. It's clear that despite his attempt to appear neutral in the negotiations, Goodell wants the owners to come out on top. This has led the players to question his leadership.

The success of the NFL in the upcoming season and in the long run will be determined by how the labor negotiations progress in the coming months. The three different types of leaders play a huge role in this debate. Their ability to lead effectively and promote feelings of cooperation will be crucial. Only time will tell how the leaders fulfill their duties.

The Prince

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince represents a departure from all of the works that I have looked at before. Virtually all of the people that have been discussed would support somewhat of a Judeo-Christian value system, which would require leaders to act with kindness in dealing with their subjects. However, with chapter titles such as "Concerning Those Who Become Princes by Evil Means" and "Concerning Cruelty" we can clearly see that Machiavelli is not going to be bothered at all by a desire to be nice. The author's name has even become synonymous with being cutthroat or heartless. We will take a closer look at this book dedicated to Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici and see how Machiavelli values power over kindness.

Machiavelli opens his book by discussing how princes, the word he uses for leaders or rulers, should handle governing different types of newly formed states. He writes about these over hereditary states where princedoms are passed down because he believes that newly formed states are more difficult to control. Mixed princedoms consist of new conquests added to older states, conquered kingdoms, and conquered free states. Next he deals with totally new states, whether they are conquests by virtue, fortune, or "criminal virtue."

After a brief look at defense and military, Machiavelli comes to what is probably the most famous part of his book: the qualities of a prince. Condemning the virtues we see extolled by some of the other authors written about here, Machiavelli claims that "a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin." Wow. I can't see Martin Luther King, Jr. or Paul Rusesabagina ever saying something like that. Although this statement seems cold and callous at first glance, it seems that Machiavelli may have just been well ahead of his time in terms of acknowledging lack of self control. He suggests that most men act with the intention of being good but fail in reality. This appears to be more realistic than evil or immoral.

One of the biggest themes in The Prince is Machiavelli's idea of pragmatism over idealism. He bemoans the fact that other men have written about governing states that could never really exist. He does not see the point of discussing "imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all." We must look at the situations that a prince will face through a realistic lens. Another big issue for Machiavelli is that this type of political philosophy necessarily implies a sort of Hobbesian view of the nature of man. He claims that men in general are "ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain." Because of this, the power of a prince is always in danger. At the smallest sign of weakness, opponents will look to capitalize.

To be considered "Machiavellian" in today's terms is not typically a compliment. People associate his name with a desire for power and a cutthroat mentality. In reality, Machiavelli's view of the nature of man requires this effort to protect yourself in positions of authority. He clearly rejects idealism in favor of a more realistic attitude toward leadership. Although not all, people deserve such a cynical attitude, there are some people out there who fit Machiavelli's description. Self-preservation requires that we be aware that these type of people exist and act to maintain our leadership position. Not everyone may want to acknowledge how close Machiavelli's idea of human nature is to reality, but the best leaders must.

Goals of the Leader vs. the Group

In an ideal world, the goals of a leader line up perfectly with the goals of the group he is leading. The leader and those who follow him would be in sync as they move toward the completion of these goals. But in reality this may not always be the case. For a variety of different reasons, the leader may be motivated to achieve different ends than his followers. In some instances the leader may be right and in others the group may be right. For example, the aims of an elementary school teacher are usually going to be different from the aims of a student. The teacher wants the class to follow the lesson plan attentively and learn, while the students may be more interested in goofing around. In this case we would say that the leader is right and the students need to obey.

But what about a case where right and wrong is not so clear cut? Say a wealthy CEO is feeling the pressure from his board of directors to raise the company's stock price. Although the employees may be interested in working diligently to maintain the long term health of the company, the CEO might start firing people and implementing strategies that are solely focused on the short term in order to save his job. The misalignment of goals between the two groups would surely create tension. How do those being led go about addressing this tension? And how much latitude is the leader given because of his position.

In the 1960s Stanley Milgram conducted an eye-opening study on our sheep-like tendency to obey those in perceived positions of authority. Test subjects continued to administer harmful electric shocks to what they thought were fellow participants just because some men in lab coats told them to do so. The point is that leaders can be wrong sometimes. Just because a person is a leader doesn't mean that he is always right. Those in non-leadership positions must be ready to step up and be heard when leaders start to do things like we saw in Germany in the 1930s that led up to the horrors of the Holocaust. When the goals of the leaders and the led are not in line, the followers must sometimes be ready to come forward and act.

Letter from Birmingham Jail

Martin Luther King, Jr. writes "Letter from Birmingham Jail" in response to criticisms he has received from other religious leaders in the South. The leaders, which include white Christian ministers and Jewish rabbis, have condemned his actions as extremist and violence provoking. King responds by detailing the four basic steps of nonviolent action: "collection of facts to determine whether injustices exist, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action." Since King and the other black religious leaders have already been through the first three steps, nonviolent direct action was the necessary next step. He insists that action is required to bring the issues of segregation to the forefront of society so negotiation must occur.

After defending his own actions by referencing a myriad of Christian figures who were also thought to be "extremists" in their time, King goes on to talk about the two groups in which he is sorely disappointed: the white moderate and the white Southern religious leaders. He feels that both of them are too tied to the current status quo to make any reasonable effort toward change. Interestingly, King laments that the inextricable ties between the status quo and organized religion may prevent white Christians from ever ending segregation. Finally, he ends his letter with the utmost confidence in the success of his movement when he says, "We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom."

Martin Luther King, Jr. finds himself in the difficult--but not unprecedented in Christianity--position of having to lead from prison. In his letter he draws the obvious connection between himself and Paul as two men who tried to head a movement without their physical presence. King's letter differs dramatically from Paul's letters, though, because Paul wrote directly to his followers, while King is writing to his critics. Although it may not represent our typical picture of leadership, King does his best to defend the actions of his fellow protestors. He gives analogies from Christian history, from the Old Testament through the 19th Century, that suggest that he and those supporting him are in the right. Although his efforts may be futile, King tries to show these other religious leaders the error of their ways and get them to join his cause. The positivity and conviction with which he writes are invaluable characteristics of any good leader.

King's letter provides a microcosm for the desegregation movement as a whole. When faced with criticism and adversity, he calmly and patiently points out the errors being made and suggests ways that these errors may be corrected. The tact and reason that he shows in his letter mirrors the nonviolent and just method of protest that he promotes. In this case, form and function go hand in hand beautifully, a fact not lost on a man like Martin Luther King, Jr. He realizes that he has an opportunity to provide an example for his people of the way he wants them to respond in the face of adversity. In a way, even though he the letter is addressed to the white religious leaders, he is actually talking to his followers. King is telling them to resist injustice peacefully and rationally, in the same way that he is.

Who Leads the Leader?

This blog post won't be very long and it's going to have more questions than answers, but I want to try to tackle one question: when the leader is at his lowest, who leads the leader? Obviously it's easy for anyone to lead when things are going well for a group. A good leader can step up and take control when things are not going so well. But when the leader specifically is struggling, to whom does he turn? I see three potential options that he has. First, he could rely on the support of others within his group. Next, he could turn to someone outside of the group. Finally, he could dig down deep within himself and realize that the unit is much more important than any individual issues that he has.

The first course of action is a leader who looks to others in his group for support. On the plus side, they will know the leader well and know his situation. A person within his group could speak knowledgeably about whatever problems the leader has. On the flip side, it would be hard for the group member to give an unbiased opinion and distance himself from the situation. Also, there is probably a reason that the leader has his position and the person he would turn to does not. Whether that person is not ready to deal with the leadership role or doesn't have the necessary personality traits, the leader is the leader because he deserves to be. So maybe consulting someone who isn't quite ready for that responsibility isn't the best idea.

The next possible choice is to consult somebody outside of the group. Positively, it would be easier for this person to give an unbiased opinion of the situation than it would be for someone involved in the group. In addition, one could find a person who is a leader in a different area that would be able to identify with the struggles inherent in leadership that a non-leader might not be able to understand. Negatively, it might be hard for this outsider to understand the group dynamic in a way that would be necessary for a proper solution. While I do like this option better than the first one, I think it still leaves something to be desired.

The last option is for the leader to look down deep within himself and summon what strength he has, realizing that he is just a small part of the whole. The unit should not have to suffer because he suffers. As I mentioned above, he is the leader for a reason. And that reason is that he has the capacity to fight through hardship. Whether that hardship is at the group level or the individual level it should not matter. The biggest negative here is that the leader runs the risk of internalizing his issues to his own and his group's detriment. However, the hope is that this man should be able to overcome whatever struggles he faces, that's why we call him a leader.

Antigone and Creon's Decree

At the crux of the play Antigone is a difference in how two different people view leadership. Antigone believes that being a leader is doing what she believes is right no matter what the consequences. Conversely, Creon feels that leadership must demonstrate control. When Creon makes the decree that the body of Polynices is not to be touched, he believes it is for the good of the city. Creon assumes that forcing a traitor to the city to go unburied and rot in the sun will provide a stern warning to any dissatisfied citizens with designs on defecting. His motives for issuing the decree are purely public. Des Pres claims that it is an arbitrary act that is merely done to cement his power over the war-torn city of Thebes.

Antigone acts on strictly private motivations. She feels a sense of duty to her family and to the gods to see to it that her brother is buried. As Des Pres says, "Challenging Creon is not part of Antigone's plans." She stands in stark contrast to her sister Ismene, who fears his punishment. With two brothers dead, a father disgraced and gone, and a scared sister, Antigone has to assume the leadership role in her family. All she wants is to see her brother honored the way she feels he should be. Her act of civil disobedience is not a political one, it's a personal one.

Although these two main figures differ on how they view leadership, they do share one flaw: ignoring other possible courses of action. Des Pres makes the point that this play does not start with the same fated ending that we see in Oedipus, where the gods have already sealed his destiny. At no point in the play do we feel that it has to end up as tragically as it does. There are many instances where Creon or Antigone could have pursued different courses of action that would have eliminated the need for more loss of life. First, Antigone could have gone to Creon directly and pleaded for lenience regarding his decree. Also, she was married to his son! Surely she could have gone to Haemon to talk some sense into his father. Most obviously, Antigone did not need to try to bury Polynices a second time. Presumably after the burial rites had been completed once they did not need to be repeated. From Creon's perspective, after Antigone was arrested he could have easily pardoned her for her crime. He also could have declared that she was crazy with sadness or even reduced her punishment. But because he was so focused on his concept of leadership as a show of power and control, he could see no other options.

Antigone raises questions about civil disobedience and a sort of "natural law" that are still relevant to this day. The main lesson we can learn from the tragedy that results in the play is that nothing is inevitable. Creon and Antigone were two people with different motivations and philosophies that sucked them into a set of circumstances that seemed to lead to the deaths of three people. However, upon closer inspection we see that both people had options available to them at any time which could have dramatically changed the outcome of the play. A true leader is never blinded by emotion or sense of duty but rather maintains a keen eye for preferable alternatives.