An unprincipled political leader, most readers would agree, is to be deplored. But which principles do we deplore, and which do we admire? Who decides? And when? Ideas about principled leadership can change over time.
The intersection of history and politics is a sweet spot for Matt Dallek, a historian and professor of political management in the Graduate School of Political Management, housed in the George Washington University’s College of Professional Studies, and author of books about the John Birch Society, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. In his Principled Political Leadership course, he guides students learning how to think about these questions, with the goal of strengthening their own leadership skills.
“Political leadership is really amorphous,” Dallek said. “You can define it in all kinds of ways.”
History does not lack examples of how ideas about principled leadership can change with time and circumstance. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln’s approach to the issue of slavery changed in reaction to shifts in public opinion, in the culture and to national events. Today, most people would agree that Lincoln did the right thing, if not always for the right reason.
Bill Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, leading to a scandal he survived in the 1990s, might lead to his downfall today. At the time, voters seemed to elevate policy considerations over concerns about Clinton’s personal character.
“My students tend to have a more negative view of Clinton than I think a lot of people did in the 1990s,” Dallek said. “The culture has changed, and we’re living after the ‘me too’ movement. But in the 1990s, a lot of Democrats, women’s groups included, said his affair was a private matter and emphasized how good Clinton was on policy. He endorsed the Paycheck Fairness Act and signed the Family and Medical Leave Act; he championed the Violence Against Women Act, a law that was really important; and he defended a right to abortion and appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Today, more people would probably focus on the fact that Lewinsky was an intern in the workplace and the power imbalance was wildly out of whack.”
In politics, it is possible to win by losing, Dallek said, citing the example of Lyndon Johnson, who did the right thing in signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even though he knew the Democratic Party would pay a steep political price in at least the next several elections. Many other examples of politicians “winning by losing” are in the historical record, including that of Bernie Sanders.
“Almost by its very nature, politics highlights this tension between idealism and pragmatism,” Dallek said. “Bernie Sanders is one of the most influential forces in the Democratic Party. After building a movement and running in the presidential primary and losing in 2016, then running again and losing in 2020, he supported first Hillary Clinton and then endorsed Joe Biden. He brought his voters into Biden’s camp and basically got policy concessions from Biden on the issues that he cares about most.”
Biden’s policy agenda nodded to Sanders on economic issues, health care, climate and more. It was widely reported that Sanders succeeded in moving Biden further to the left.
“Maybe you agree with a political leader 90% of the time,” Dallek said, “but disagree with 10% of their agenda. Or maybe you really don't like them as a person—you may even think that they’re immoral and have low character—and yet at the same time, you think their agenda is good for the country. How do you make that decision?”
The character issue
The character issue has been highlighted in the candidacy of Donald Trump. His supporters often say they dislike him personally, but they support his policies.
“With someone like Trump, the lies, the disinformation, the conspiracy theories don’t seem to hurt him at all,” Dallek said, adding that political incentives give Trump’s backers in Congress an obvious motivation to downplay his flaws. “Do we just drop our hands and say, well, there are no ethics, there’s no morality you have to adhere to? Obviously, that’s not true.”
One of Dallek’s goals in the course is to help his students become better communicators. (Lily Speredelozzi/GW Today)
Whatever his own political opinions may be, Dallek does not impose them on students. In fact, he said, he wants students to have different views and to express different personal and ideological perspectives. The course is mostly focused on U.S. politics, but international perspectives are welcome.
Other figures discussed in the course include Little Rock Nine member Melba Pattillo Beals, former U.S. Representatives Anthony Weiner and Barbara Jordan and Republican strategist Lee Atwater. One of several guest speakers invited to talk with the class is Jordan’s biographer Mary Ellen Curtin.
“We’re going to talk about women in leadership and also the issue of race and leadership,” Dallek said. “Curtin calls Barbara Jordan a strategic idealist. And Jordan was accused throughout her career of being a sellout and doing deals with very conservative former segregationist members of Congress. Curtin says Jordan believed in Black power, but she chose to wield it and to try to achieve it in ways that not everyone applauded.”
Some of his students, Dallek realizes, hope to work in an activist space, while others are going to be more comfortable lobbying or being in a legislature or making the gears work. One of his aims is to help them develop the communication skills they will need to work in whatever sphere they choose. Assignments in the course include writing an op-ed, a political speech, a social media post, a campaign strategy memo, and an essay analyzing leadership.
A recent visitor to the class was Jennifer Mercieca, a professor of communication at Texas A&M University and the author of “Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump” (Texas A&M University Press, 2020). Mercieca argues that Trump skillfully uses rhetoric to unify his base and then to divide them from citizens who disagree with them.
Political rhetoric matters, Dallek said, because we’re awash in social media and because the media landscape is so fractured.
Trump’s rhetoric affirms his supporters and repels his opponents, but doesn’t seem to have much of an effect in terms of changing public opinion.
Trump attracts authoritarian personalities, Mercieca said, who crave order, dislike complexity and are looking for a strong leader to direct them. There is a right-wing push to spread authoritarian government around the world, she added.
“Authoritarian leaders learn from each other,” she said. “‘Mein Kampf’ was a propaganda manual—a how-to book.”
To bring disillusioned Trump voters back from the MAGA movement, Mercieca recommends “calling people in instead of calling them out”—welcoming former Trump voters into the Democratic tent instead of shaming them or calling them “deplorables,” as Hillary Clinton famously did in 2016.
“The need for community is strong,” she said. If people are walking around feeling as though the dominant group doesn’t care about them, then they’re going to look elsewhere for leadership.
The students engaged in animated dialogue with Mercieca. Two who are pursuing a master’s degree in political management later described their main takeaway from the course thus far.
Taylor Browne, who plans to go to law school, said she has learned to look deeper than party affiliation.
“Don’t just think, ‘I’m going to vote for the Democrats,’ or ‘I’m going to vote for the Republicans,’” Browne said. “Look at a candidate’s quality of leadership. When it comes down to making those real-life decisions, do they actually possess the leadership qualities that are necessary to be a successful leader for America?”
Her classmate Ty Lindia hopes to join the Coast Guard or Navy and then work in a government agency, preferably the EPA. He said he has learned the importance of maintaining fidelity to one’s principles rather than moving like a weather vane whenever the wind blows.
“I guess principled political leadership is sticking to your principles, staying true to you,” Lindia said. “You may not succeed politically, but sticking to your principles is an important factor not just for winning, but for the betterment of politics.”
In an ironic tribute to the South Carolina senator, Lindia calls the failure to abide by one’s stated principles “Lindsey Graham syndrome.”
