Dear Friends,
It seems to me, one way to know if you have leaders or rulers is to watch what they do. If they lead by example they are leaders, but if they rule by the barrel of a gun, they’re despots. It’s as simple as that. Do the people in charge of your nation do as they say or not? For example, if those who are in charge say that air conditioning is a luxury and to be virtuous you should forgo it, look at whether or not they use air conditioning. If they do then that hypocrisy illustrates they don’t lead by example but, as Chairman Mao said, from the barrel of a gun. A leader eats last while a despot eats alone. In other words, a despot cares for himself only, while a leader cares for his followers before himself. This shows who is worth following and who should be removed from power.
One of Confucius’ maxims is that human hearted people lead by example. In the Analects Confucius said that the human hearted man (Jen man) has several qualities. They follow the Golden Rule, they reciprocate, and they lead by example. To be able to do those things one must also be humble. To treat others as you would be treated requires humility in the form of empathy. Reciprocation is based on the humble knowledge that one is not a god but part of humanity. Moreover, to lead by example a person has to be humble enough to make the example. This tells us that a leader is someone who is humble, reciprocates, leads by example, has empathy, and puts his or her people before himself or herself. Such a person is rare because it takes decades of wisdom seeking to get there.
Chairman Mao had a different opinion. He believed that power grows from the barrel of a gun. He said the party must command the gun and the gun must never be allowed to command the party. This is the tactic of the arrogant. Leading by example is anathema to an arrogant person. Why would they lower themselves when they can simply order someone under penalty of death? The arrogant take… they don’t reciprocate, unless that reciprocation is a manipulation. All the empathy an arrogant ruler needs is himself or herself. Others are merely cannon fodder, slaves, or chattel to be used as the despot sees fit. This tells us that a child can be a despot. Lack of empathy, arrogance, refusal to reciprocate, and ruling by violence are easy for the most ignorant and selfish of people.
Selfish hypocrites make terrible leaders… but most leaders tend to be such people. This is because most people, even children, are very qualified to rule by the barrel of a gun, while the humility, work ethic, and empathy it takes to lead by example are acquired qualities. They take years and decades of diligent effort to learn. So the likelihood of someone in charge being arrogant instead of humble is skewed. Let’s say the division of arrogant to humble follows something like a Pareto curve. This doesn’t mean the arrogant can’t become humble and vice versa. Nevertheless, should there be a huge disparity, that means most of the people in charge are likely to be arrogant, and very few will be humble. This is bolstered by the fact that the arrogant seek power while the humble eschew it.
Ask yourself, do the people in charge of my nation lead by example or rule from the barrel of a gun? Do they reciprocate or are they entitled? Can you think of examples where the people in charge followed the Golden Rule? Are you allowed to speak your mind or are politically unpopular opinions censored and even met with state-sanctioned violence? These questions will tell you if the people in charge of your nation are wise humble people seeking the good of the entire polity… or arrogant despots who seek to benefit themselves at cost to the nation and polity. I suspect that far more than eighty percent of the people in charge today are of the arrogant variety. Moreover, this is a backwards compatible metric to judge past leadership as well. Which kind of leader would you prefer?
Sincerely,
John Pepin
