America has a long history of charismatic leaders, going all the way back to the well-known head of the Second Continental Congress, John Hancock.  In his footsteps followed a cavalcade of magnetic political ‘personalities’, those whose moving words, decisive action, or indeed, charisma, meaningfully inspired a nation. Many of these people who served in the Presidency – Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt (both of them), Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton – immediately come to mind in this regard.  But such leaders could also be found on Capitol Hill.  While not all of them are as well known to Americans today, their contemporaries certainly knew them at the time – Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, Henry Clay, William Jennings Bryan, Robert LaFollette, Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn, Tip O’Neill, Bob Dole, Ted Kennedy, and John McCain, to name a few.  You certainly can add your own nominees to the list.

What is notable about the list is three core characteristics.  The first is its diversity of political party – there are Federalists, Whigs, Democrats and Republicans present.  The second is each individual’s ego, or perhaps better stated, the cult of personality that surrounded them.  Each was ‘larger than life’ in many ways, with each projecting that attribute in a variety of manner.  And the third is (or more accurately was; only Clinton and Dole are still alive) their steadfast belief in our uniquely American system of government which was built upon not religious or military power, but rather the power of ideals.  Washington fought a war to establish it, Lincoln fought a war to preserve it, Roosevelt fought a war defend it, and all of them fiercely debated how best to govern and protect what Kennedy and Reagan each referred to as a shining “city on a hill”.

Regardless of political affiliation, each of their contemporaries then, as well as those of us looking back now, understood that each of these leaders, and others like them, governed in a manner that sought to build their vision of a better America.  While disagreements with their political opponents may have been frequent and fierce, it would have been widely accepted that each of them ultimately had the best interests of the country at heart, even those whose policies we may openly question today (most notably Jackson).  In short, each used their considerable charisma to expand the idealistic concept of American democracy, both domestically and abroad.

I would like to suggest that the most significant reason that each of the individuals listed above reached the position they were elected to, and had the impact they did, can be summed up in one word: respect.  The majority of Americans at the time, and much more importantly, the overwhelming majority of their political peers, had deep respect for their unique combinations of intelligence, judgment, past accomplishments (whatever the field of endeavor), and political savvy.

In 2006, John Drummond, a Fordham University professor, wrote that the philosopher Immanuel Kant “distinguishes respect from all other emotions in two ways. First, respect is the only emotion that has a relation to cognition, and second, respect is the only emotion that serves as an incentive for morally praiseworthy action.”

This type of respect has allowed Presidents to effectively lead the country as well as their party, it has allowed Senators and Representatives to effectively reach across the aisle to compromise on contentious issues, and it has allowed everyday Americans to support their political institutions during some very troubling times.  In short, respect, whether for the individuals in political power, or in the political institutions themselves, is the very cornerstone of an efficient democracy, and effective democratic leadership.

The opposite of democratic leadership is, of course, despotic or autocratic leadership, usually springing from the same character traits exhibited by the Americans listed earlier – stirring words, decisive action, and charisma.  Throughout history there have been many world leaders, as well as an American or two, who have leveraged these traits in a very different manner than Lincoln and Kennedy, Reagan and Roosevelt did.  They reached their positions of power not through respect, but through an entirely different emotion: fear.   Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Bashar al-Assad, Kim il-Sung, Robert Mugabe, and Nicolae Ceausescu are prime examples on the world stage.  (Prior to our current times, Huey Long, Joe McCarthy and George Wallace are the closest the United States has come to seeing a true demagogue in a politically powerful position.)

These individuals (or their predecessors) rose to power in most cases with the support of the people, as well as a professed belief in sustaining existing institutions and/or creating a better life for their constituents. However, all of them coalesced their power by creating and sustaining an insidious and effective culture of fear; fear of life-altering reprisal in whatever form it might take.  This imposed culture of fear sucked the very life out of the people they led (quite literally in some cases) and irreparably undermined the effectiveness of their country’s political institutions.

My thesis is that the United States has spiraled into a current political reality in which fear has completely replaced respect as the dominant emotion driving our federal government, and it is virtually 100% tied to the current occupant of the Presidency, Donald Trump.  Trump exhibits all the magnetic personality traits listed earlier – rallying words, decisive action, and unquestionable charisma.  However, he is missing the critical element that could ever allow him to join the historic pantheon of effective charismatic leaders: respect.  Respect based upon word and deed.

Trump has not demonstrated, as his predecessors nearly universally did, that he steadfastly believes in our uniquely American system of government, chief among them our system of checks and balances.  Rather than embrace this system, he has fought against it at seemingly every opportunity.  As a result, he has lost the respect of virtually everyone in Washington, and I do not say that lightly.  He has found it extraordinarily difficult to retain senior staff in the Executive Branch, and he witnessed an exceptionally high number of politicians of his own party who elected not to run for re-election, largely out of fear of how Trump would retaliate for not offering blind allegience to his leadership.

This loss of respect has forced Trump to abandon any semblance of a democratic leadership approach, and decisively embrace a despotic leadership style, in which he has created a pervasive culture of fear to keep everyone in line, and in a sense, keep him ‘in power’.  We can argue all we want about which came first, the chicken or the egg, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is where we are, with a 150+ year old, formerly principled Republican Party completely abandoning its core principles out of unabashed fear of its standard bearer.  To call it anything else is just plain naive.

Those that know me know my personal politics lay to the left of center, but the simple truth is I was brought up in the Republican Party and I continue to have great respect for their long-held core principles of small government, fiscal restraint, free market capitalism, individual responsibility and the fair enforcement of laws.  I can appreciate these core values as laudable, and I acknowledge that they fit solidly within America’s long political tradition.

However, our current reality causes me to ask some very basic questions:

• Does the GOP fully understand that over the last three years it appears to have sold its soul, that it has in fact entered a Machiavellian reality where the ends justify the means?
• Does it understand that its actions suggest that power is now considered more important than our long-held American ideals?
• And finally, for the sake of our country, I ask the Republican Party leadership and each of its members to look in the mirror and ask of themselves, “am I consciously supporting President Trump’s agenda out of a deep respect for his leadership, principles and policy positions, or am I blindly supporting the President’s agenda out of a fear of his political, financial and social media retaliation if I don’t?”

While I may disagree with the President’s policies, I could respect the 250+ Republicans on the Hill if it is the former.  However, I fear it is most definitely the latter.