Leadership and Hypocrisy
What makes a great leader? There are scores of books and articles on this subject. We could compile a list of most desirable qualities. We could draw references to George Washington, or quotes from Winston Churchill (well, we did borrow from Sir Winston, below). Our focus would start with integrity. But two qualities that don’t go together are these: leadership and hypocrisy. Which draws us to the sad tale of Senator Schumer, the minority leader in the United States Senate.
Integrity, Wherefore Art Thou . . .
What is integrity? At its core lies honesty. Honesty is being consistent in one’s moral and ethical standards. It is truthfulness or accuracy in one’s actions. Internal consistency as a virtue. Where one has conflicting values, it means accounting for the discrepancy.
So how to identify integrity? No scientific method is available. We must look subjectively, and utilize this basic test: what could be more deficient in a leader than a failure to follow his own expressed rules and principles? Certainly, leadership and hypocrisy can’t work in tandem. So let’s look toward New York’s Senator Schumer.
Editor’s Note: We note that one of the goals of this Marketplace of Ideas is to avoid personal attacks. Our purpose in this piece is to focus on leadership qualities, and in the context of the Senate minority leader. We are concerned with leadership and hypocrisy. We are not attacking a position or argument taken by Senator Schumer by fallaciously challenging his character. Rather, the subject of our discussion is the truthfulness or integrity of the person taking the position. By pointing out an inconsistency, our argument is not a personal attack.
. . . Buried Under a Heap of Hypocrisy
We turn to Senator Schumer’s words over a period of almost ten years to illustrate one of his guiding principles. We focus on his approach to nominations to the United States Supreme Court. This is no small matter of importance to our system of government. The leadership of the Senate minority leader is an essential part of this process.
Let’s examine the principles embedded in a Senator Schumer speech from 2007: “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation [for a Supreme Court justice nominee]. . . . We should not confirm any . . . nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.” And when should they be confirmed? “They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”
We identify three basic principles in these words:
1. Supreme Court nominees should generally not be confirmed;
2. In order to be confirmed, they must have proven by their actions that they are “in the mainstream”, and;
3. They should only be confirmed (after, presumably, having proven they are “in the mainstream”) in “extraordinary circumstances.”
Senator Schumer’s unique and unusual standard for Supreme Court confirmation, although perhaps not one that we would agree with, nevertheless qualifies as a confirmation standard. Senator Schumer may apply his standard, our objection notwithstanding.
Fast-forward almost ten years. After Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Senator Schumer responded to Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s position of blocking President Obama’s nominee even before that nominee was identified. Senator Schumer stated “[Senator McConnell] doesn’t even know who the President’s going to propose and he said, no, we’re not having hearings. . . . This kind of obstructionism isn’t going to last. And you know, we Democrats didn’t do this.”
From this second articulation by Senator Schumer it appears as if he concluded that Senator McConnell was standing for the following three principles:
1. Supreme Court nominees generally should not be confirmed;
2. In order to be confirmed, they must be “in the mainstream”, as defined by Senator McConnell, and;
3. They should only be confirmed in “extraordinary circumstances”, which for Senator McConnell would be after the election of the new President.
These two formulations are essentially the same. Senator Schumer approved of the articulated standard in 2007. But in 2016, he abandoned his previously expressed principles, perhaps because they no longer served any political goal, though he never voiced his rationale.
We have no quarrel with a leader changing his principles upon realizing that those principles are either deficient, or wrong, or otherwise failed to achieve a higher-valued objective. We expect that from our great leaders. A willingness to change when circumstances warrant change is a wonderful leadership quality. In that scenario, Senator Schumer would be praised for realizing the flaws inherent in his 2007 articulation of principles. Recognizing those flaws and adopting new (and, hopefully, improved) principles is a great sign of leadership.
Now we turn to January, 2017, on the precipice of a Republican takeover of the White House. Considering future Supreme Court nominees of President-elect Trump, Senator Schumer said: “It’s hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support.” He indicated that he would “absolutely” do his best to oppose any Trump nominee and keep the vacant Supreme Court seat open, apparently in perpetuity (or earlier upon the election of a Democratic President).
Parsing these words, it appears that Senator Schumer has re-adopted his original 2007 principles:
1. Supreme Court nominees should generally not be confirmed;
2. In order to be confirmed, they must be “in the mainstream”, as defined by Senator Schumer, and;
3. They should only be confirmed in extraordinary circumstances,” which would (presumably) be after the election of a Democratic President.
Leadership and Hypocrisy: We All Lose When Integrity is Lost
Prime Minister Churchill said “I have often had to eat my words, and I must confess that I have always found it a wholesome diet.” Unfortunately, our illustration is not a simple instance of word swallowing. Rather, this jettisoning of principles, apparently for political convenience, strikes at the heart of leadership. Leadership and hypocrisy simply cannot co-exist.
Lest we come down too hard on Senator Schumer we suggest, with sorrow, that this is but the latest example of why so many Americans feel cast adrift. Our observations are not meant as an attack on a leader because he is a member of the Democratic party. We do not doubt examples on the other side of the aisle would be found, were we inclined to devote our efforts to such, which we are not.
Our political leaders do us a disservice when they abandon principles for political convenience. They do a disservice to the brave and solitary voices who preceded them, such as those so aptly described by President Kennedy in his book, Profiles in Courage. But they do themselves an even greater disservice – for what is left when integrity is lost?
