Tarra Theisen HON 230B Final Paper Leadership, Democracy, and a More Thoughtful Public.

Although seemingly straightforward, Ive learned that these notions and ideas are complex and due some thought. Throughout this course, we have discussed how the aspects of leadership, democracy, and a more thoughtful public are interconnected and codependent. The importance of rhetoric can affect a leader, affect the sustainability of a democracy, and make the difference between a persuaded audience and a more thoughtful public. Good leaders are ethically driven to make decisions based on the wants of a more thoughtful public within a democracy. In some respects, its hard to describe one idea without relating it to the other two especially when several aspects are interwoven into a symbiotic relationship. I suggest that notions of leadership, democracy, and a more thoughtful public are separate entities that depend on each other over time. This ecology is what I believe mankind should strive to achieve in their political and cultural institutions. Leadership. We discussed this more specifically in the first part of the course, dealing with rhetoric and persuasion. The importance of utilizing clear and concise rhetoric is essential in building a good leader and a sustainable democracy. Orwell suggests that people use muddy language when they are trying to avoid a point or hide something. This poses a problem when considering politicians who are trying to enact laws and gain public support. Furthermore, ethical and effective information seeking is crucial to a leader who wishes to sustain his power and state. To a greater end, I believe that the public is the entity that decides what is ethical in a democratic state, we (ideally) choose leaders that represent our goals and beliefs. Democracy. Tying into the difference between force and persuasion (i.e. despotism versus democracy), good leaders and a more thoughtful public can only be found in a free society. Within such a society, there is the option to debate policy, ideas, beliefs, and desires. There is a balance between personal liberty and order of the state. We must consider Brands Infinite Game and the importance of looking to live in the long now if we wish to sustain our democracy in future generations. Finally, the question of extending democracy to despotic cultures: is it acceptable to apply democracy (by force) to a nation that would prefer otherwise (or is incapable of sustaining a free society)? Singapore and Dostoevskys Brothers Karamazov provide more insight into this question. A More Thoughtful Public. In my opinion, this is the key to sustaining democracy and creating ethical and effective leaders and conversely, a more thoughtful public is possible only in a free society led by such leaders. This public is the group that controls the ethical and moral backbone of society. And when considering assumptions that we must make about human nature, we must believe that man can rise above himself to form such a public. Ultimately, a more thoughtful public today is what will sustain an ethical society for tomorrow it is an evolution of beliefs, ideals, and desires that will be the foundation for societies in the future. Throughout this course, we have focused on the idea of creating and sustaining a democratic state. I believe that one crucial aspect of this plan is the cultivation of effective leadership. In Chapter One of Language of Leadership, Soder writes of the art of persuasion, and the different

techniques that one can employ ethos, logos, pathos, etc. I believe that these three ways are useful and applicable to certain situations. If a leader chooses to persuade based on ethos, or his character, he is calling on people to trust him because of his past actions and decisions. If he has good standing, then it is assumed that he will make similar good decisions in the future. This is something that the public today employs in elections it is crucial for a hopeful politician to have a seemingly spotless record if he hopes to have a chance at winning. While I agree that this is both powerful as a persuasive tool and important to a leaders ability to persuade, I believe that ethical and effective leadership stems from much more. A leader must be able to persuade based on logos logic to appeal to the rationally minded. And sometimes, a leader must persuade based on emotion in America, for example, we have the rally around the flag mentality and a strong sense of nationalism after major events or disasters. While a leader should not base his decisions solely on the emotions of the people, he can use them to create unity and stability when it matters the most. In effect, a leader must be prepared to persuade and engage with his public in a variety of ways and at any time. This discussion brings to mind the question of a persuaded audience versus a more thoughtful public. We have discussed that in a democracy, we must try to cultivate a more thoughtful public that is not merely guided by a leader or government. As Syllabus Intent One states, Leadership involves at its base the creation of a persuaded audience; but beyond that, leadership involves creating and sustaining a more thoughtful public, a public capable of rising above itself. If a leader is to create a society that is truly long-term and capable of sustaining itself, the power lies with the people and their desire to make ethical and effective decisions. As Soder explains in Language of Leadership, In a democratic civic society, merely creating a persuaded audience does not provide solid ethical and political grounding. The power of doing such lies with a more thoughtful public a public that is active, contemplative, and willing to consider issues and proposed actions[and how they] bear on the fundamental moral and political grounding of the whole [community]. Thus, a leader will not merely persuade but engage his public, and encourage them to rise above themselves. A quick note on Orwells point about the use of clear and concise language (as well as those who purposely muddle their words). We discussed in class how rhetoric and persuasion have negative connotations in modern use; that a leader who tries to persuade someone is trying to pull a fast one or make a shady deal. In Politics and the English Language, Orwell writes that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes.but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. While the public would like to blame politicians for their shady dealings and corrupt practices, it ultimately comes back to them the public to make a change for the better. I agree that clear language and rhetoric is a step towards efficiency and creating a more effective leader (certainly more ethical as well; he wouldnt hide anything beneath his words). But this change goes hand-in-hand with a change enacted by a more thoughtful public. In addition to rhetoric and persuasion, information seeking is a vital aspect of ethical and effective leadership. A leader must be careful and sometimes selective when it comes to receiving and giving information to others. He should be open to receiving all information, but use scrutiny in determining its validity. One aspect of this tool that I found interesting was the costs of information seeking. One cost is listed as, Information seeking and consequent

information receiving constitute a potentially costly exchange relationship. This brings up an important idea that social exchange is a critical factor in the stabilization of societies. As we talk of creating and maintaining a more thoughtful public, it is important to consider how interpersonal relationships affect the ecology of the system. If we accept that information is a commodity that can be exchanged, traded, even sold, then it is a part of a larger economy that is the society. And if we are looking to establish long-term relationships that will last over time, we must be wise in treating others fairly in terms of exchanging such information. If a leader scorns another person early in their relationship, it will be hard to expect a sense of trust to remain (and therefore, there is a loss of a potential information source). Thus, both the leader and the public must remain open but cautious in their attempts to seek information. If they maintain relationships and make ethical decisions, it will be possible for the democratic state to be sustained. Syllabus Intent 2 states: Good leadership involves ethical and effective information seeking. A leader must have knowledge of what must be done, knowledge of what it takes to persuade others of what must be done (and, in persuading, creating a more thoughtful public), and knowledge of how an audience/public will respond. Thus, I feel that the persona of a leader is multifaceted. He must first have the foresight to assess the publics needs and desires through information seeking, perhaps. Then he must know how to persuade others of his plan (hopefully through ethical means, thus creating the thoughtful public). And then, the leader must know the outcome of his decisions an unwise leader is one who doesnt know the effects of his choices. There is the saying that a lawyer never asks a question that he doesnt know the answer to a similar idea. But the key to this idea is that much of a leaders success depends on the views and reactions of the public it isnt what happens to the public but what they believe happens to them that is important (we would hope that in a more thoughtful public, people would be aware of what was actually happening as well). Along the topic of information seeking, its interesting to note what happens when the sharing of information goes wrong. In light of the WikiLeaks scandal that has arisen over the past few weeks, its easy to see how valuable information is as a commodity and bargaining tool. Some believe that the government is abusing its hold over information by withholding confidential information from the general public as a matter of state interests. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would fundamentally agree he has been quoted saying that it is the publics duty to hold the government responsible for its actions (and hence, the foundations for his site). But after the scandal that occurred a few weeks ago, Assange is now being held by London police for alleged sexual misconduct. Unless this timing is mere coincidence, I would opt to argue that his arrest is a response to the backlash that has arisen from the leaked documents. Here we see the balance between liberty and order coming into play while there is free speech, there are certainly boundaries (even if they are due to hidden political agendas). In view of a democracy, there is a sizeable difference between force and persuasion. A leader may persuade his audience or public into one view or another, but if he forces it upon them the idea will be received differently. Machiavelli writes in The Prince that it is safer to be feared than loved. While this may be true for a leader wishing to sustain personal power in a despotic state, I would argue that this is dangerous for a leader who is trying to maintain a democracy. This line of thinking certainly would not work with a more thoughtful public. In this sense, I feel

that persuasion is definitely seen as a tool rather than a hindrance. Often, people can have the same goals but differing views on how to achieve those goals one must persuade the others that his is the best plan. And in a more thoughtful public, people would actively debate solutions to determine the best one for the entirety of the state. We can loosely align the idea of force with despotism and the notion of persuasion with democracy. While despotism is rooted in the need for control, democracy is based on the desire for freedom. A democracy cannot exist without the option to debate policies, ideas, and the like. The very basis lies within the idea of a free and open society where people have an active say in their government. Soder quotes Robert Dahl in listing some distinctions of a democratic state over a despotic one: elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, right to run for office, freedom of expression, alternative information, and associational autonomy. The underlying thread of these conditions is the power that lies within the public to make their own decisions. There is the freedom to choose leadership, to express themselves, to associate with whomever they choose to associate with. But this freedom is set within a larger system that ensures a sense of order on a greater level. The freedom of the people would never escalate to a state of anarchy or chaos within a stable democratic system. In the question between despotism and democracy, there are three basic differences: passive acceptance versus outward skepticism, silence versus outspoken criticism, and compliance versus consent. All questions of liberty versus order. In a democracy, we strive to find a harmonious balance between the two too much liberty, there is anarchy; too much order, there is despotism. But where does the balance lie and who gets to decide? In an ideal world, this would be the job of a more thoughtful public. Although it seems backward, to encourage debate and skepticism of a governing institution, it is what makes democracy so strong. By standing the tests and trials of free inquiry and scrutiny, a democracy is accepted to be the best possible solution to a group of peoples needs and desires. A despotic state is not based on the needs of the people, but through the subjugation of the people under a threatening authority. (Cromwell may try to suggest otherwise, but we know hes wrong). This discussion brings up two important questions. First, where does the notion of soft despotism fall into this argument? And if we are to believe that democracy is the best solution, is it ethically right to impose it on other societies? The Singapore example is an interesting hybrid society. They willfully choose to forfeit personal liberties for the assurance of an orderly state. And some would argue that it has been successful, so far Singapore is clean and healthy with an active economy. But I think it is crucial to note the composition of the Singapore population. In the articles we read in class, it is noted that many of the people living in Singapore came from lives ruled by despotic rule, where they had no freedoms and lived in relative poverty. There was no safety for them. I see why Singapore is attractive they receive security and a comfortable life while suspending liberties they never truly held in the first place. There is a comment made in the article that suggests that democracy cannot be imposed on a public that doesnt want it, or isnt ready to engage with issues. I think that it takes time to cultivate a more thoughtful public, and perhaps Singapore is on its way there. (Note those in Singapore who are opting for more freedoms, but who are being quelled by the government. We will have to see where Singapore ends up over the next few years and decades).

Within our own society in America (and in the western world), there is the notion of soft despotism that we as a public let ourselves be guided or controlled by the leaders we elect (supposedly on good debate, information sharing, interest, etc.) Personally, I think this is somewhat true. Idealistically, I believe that there is still a more thoughtful public that is guiding our society in the right direction. Tocqueville likens soft despotism to a brand of orderly, gentle, peaceful slavery, which is exactly what it is. We often talk of the great lengths that other men and women went through to secure universal suffrage, yet voting turnout today is embarrassingly low. People say that they are too busy to investigate, or that their vote doesnt matter when there are millions of other votes at stake. By fostering such a mindset, these people are slowly submitting themselves to their societies and they are steadily handing over their free will to decide. But I feel that democracy and being part of a more thoughtful public goes beyond these arguments. I feel that the act of inquiring about policies and voting in elections has more connotations than just being a statistic. It suggests that the society in which we live not only allows but fosters open debate and discussion. Our leaders dont just pass laws for the people but engage with them. We as a public believe that we have the power to make a difference over the long-term. I think that people are motivated by immediate success or immediate results. It doesnt work like that in a democracy. Things take time. In The Clock of the Long Now, Stewart Brand writes of the need for people to think in terms of the long view. He suggests that if we truly wish to sustain a democratic state, we have to think beyond personal benefit and gain. And people are willing to do this if they feel that they receive something in return. Brand quotes Rosabeth Moss Kanter when writing of this problem: People take the long view when they perceive leaders as trustworthy.[They] take the long view when they believe the rules of the game are fairThey take the long view when they have a deep understanding of system dynamics. They see the connections between actions in one place and consequences in another. In relation to assumptions about human nature, I would suggest that people are willing to make decisions that benefit others, as long as they receive something in return. While I would like to believe that people are wholeheartedly selfless, we would agree that this just isnt the case. Thus, the crucial factor lies within teaching a public about the importance of sustaining a democratic society. If they see the value within this, they are more apt to cultivate a more thoughtful public. By thinking in the long view, people make decisions that have farreaching benefits and effects. As Brand continues to note, The debt we cannot repay our ancestors we pay our descendants. If we are thinking more on a global scale, there is the question of extending democracy to other nations and states. Its logical that wed wish to sustain our own democracy in America, but does this include advocating for the spread of democracy across the globe? When we discussed this topic in class, a point came up about the definition of democracy itself that there must be the presence of a more thoughtful public (or at least, the beginnings of one) if a democracy is to last. Wouldnt it be hypocritical to force a democratic state on someone else? It seems like the notion of itself lies in the will of the public to form the type of government that they want. Like the people in Singapore, I believe that a democracy certainly cannot be forced upon a public, but more than that, democracy must go beyond a passive acceptance of community ideals and beliefs. There must be an active interest in forming a collective group that defies the power of a dictator or tyrannical regime.

When we were discussing this idea of imposing democracy in class, I found myself thinking of our current occupation of Iraq and our hopes to bring democracy to the Middle East. Setting the political agenda of the war aside, I wonder if it is actually possible to cultivate a sustainable democracy in Iraq. Some will argue that we used the war as a cover to gain access to oil or other wealth, and that the democracy scheme is a cover-up. Others will say that the armed forces are actively trying to create a sustainable and stable government in a fragmented society. There are numerous sources and reports to support both sides. I believe that the true test will come once American and western forces leave Iraq what happens once the Iraqis are in control is what matters. One always hears of voting riots or political instability, or internal fighting stemming from religious causes. But I do believe that if the people want a democratic state, it will happen. It may take time and effort, but anything is possible if the desire is there. This is why it is so important for us as students and citizens to continue learning and educating ourselves about what is occurring around the world. The global dynamic is constantly changing and evolving. The free will of the people is essentially important to the foundations of a more thoughtful public. Without it, there is no access to open inquiry and debate, no room for discussion and analysis. In The Grand Inquisitor of The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky illustrates what happens when a leader believes (or argues) that man does not want free will. The Grand Inquisitor argues that mankind is weak, rebellious, and prone to unhappiness and chaos and that by assuming control over man, the Inquisitor is sacrificing himself for the betterment of the public. While it is debatable whether the Inquisitor truly believes in what he argues, I feel that this portrait of man is patronizing and ultimately self-defeating. When we discuss the notion of a more thoughtful public, we talk of the need for the public to be active and inquisitive; we believe that man has the ability to rise above himself. We assume that human nature does not have to be a hindrance to the sustainability of a democracy. This is a very important belief to note. While I feel that the power truly lies within the more thoughtful public, an underlying qualifier is what we believe man has the power to choose ethically, to act effectively, and to create a better society for themselves and future generations. If man does not believe in himself, it will be impossible to create an ethically sound society and state. Despotic societies arise because people are subjugated and forced to believe (or perhaps believe themselves) that they are not capable of choosing for themselves and I think that it is this belief that hinders so many. Sustainability is a concern for democracies and publics that are trying to think and act in view of the long-term. We have learned that what it takes to create and what it takes to sustain are often very different things. As a leader, it is important to remember this distinction. A good leader will be remembered for something he began, but a true leader will be remembered for the legacy he leaves behind. In Revolutions Revisited, Ralph Lerner writes of Lincolns beliefs and tactics that shaped American thought and culture. Looking in the long-view, Lincoln seeks to craft a sustainable government that will be rooted in a nation of a self-aware public. Lerner writes, Rather than remain the tacit understanding in a politicians private calculations, the shaping of public sentiment itself becomes, thanks to Lincoln, a subject of public reflection and debate. Lincoln calls on the community to rise again to the spirit of democracy that was seen in the days of the original revolution. He calls upon the people to lead the nation into a new era of unity and active

participation, not to accept the qualms of any leader that comes to power. Lerner continues to write, Only a general clarity about the conditions of popular government and only a greater awareness of the role of public opinion within it can enable the Americans to recover their balance and find themselves. Failing that, they will remain victims of their delusions and deluders. Thus, it comes back to the public to believe in itself and to enact change. A good leader, like Lincoln, will remind his public of their power and will incite them to create change. In doing so, the leader will ensure the sustainability of the thoughtful public and of the democracy itself. Ethical and effective leaders are, in essence, created by the presence of a more thoughtful public. It is the public that is responsible for creating and maintaining standards of morality and ethics in society. By creating such standards, the public is able to control what is deemed as acceptable and as inacceptable, as well as what is right and wrong in the view of democracy. We place such importance on the freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. as outlined in the first amendment because we dont want to return to the rigid regime of the English crown. But we also place importance on governmental institutions, law, and order, because we value safety in our lives and communities. In this essential balance between liberty and order, democracy is kept alive as a harmony between personal freedom and order of the state. It is interesting to watch Supreme Court cases that time after time uphold the right to free expression, while new legislation is passed that seemingly curtails personal liberties to share information or technology. While there are certain periods of unbalance, civil dispute, or unrest, it always returns to a point in the middle where there are some liberties and some order that is maintained. This is why democracy is so important by discussing issues and debating opinions, we find a solution that is in the middle. Persuasion, rhetoric, and information seeking are important tools to creating an ethical and effective leader. This leader must know how to persuade in various situations, how to predict the outcome of his decisions, and how to react to public opinion. But he must also realize that persuasion must work towards creating a more thoughtful public. Rhetoric is essential to a leader who wishes to engage with his public. Clear and concise language is key to conveying messages and ideas. The better rhetorician a leader is, the more likely he will be viewed to be trustworthy and knowledgeable about action that must be taken. Similarly, this leader must integrate various information-seeking strategies into his strategy if he is to sustain his power and his state. The universal truth of information is that it is always changing and evolving. A leader must be well rounded in attaining and assessing his information if he wishes to succeed. Yet besides these tools, a leaders most valuable weapon is the more thoughtful public. The public is the key to creating a stable and lasting democracy. Dont we often say that a government itself is a true representation of its people and their beliefs? While we may sometimes stray towards a notion of soft despotism or an imbalance of liberty and order, we always come back to a happy medium. This is a testament to democracys true power. In the long view, we must be cautious as a more thoughtful public to seek out solutions that will provide for long-term results. We cannot be too haste to choose the easy route that provides immediate gratification. We have touched on the idea of world peace, what it means, and if it is

actually attainable in our current world. While this is a valid question, the thing to remember is that even if we believe its impossible, we must continue to try. Perhaps someday, the world can become a unified more thoughtful public. But until then, we cannot force democracy, what we think is right, onto others they will resent us, and they will reject the democratic state. Until this time comes, a more thoughtful public as we know it will continue to thrive and sustain our democracy and our culture. We will work towards ethical and effective decision making, electing able leaders who will continue to inspire the public to rise above itself and create progress. And ultimately, ideals of this thoughtful public will spread, slowly but surely, to other states and nations where people will feel the need to create their own thoughtful public too.