“I have never trusted the people who want to be President, and I have despaired over the structural problem that we’re always stuck having to vote for somebody who has strongly desired the presidency.”
—-Ann Althouse, in a very strange blog post in which she sympathizes with Kamala Harris for what Althouse sees as a weariness and dislike of campaigning.
I suppose it is good to know that Althouse doesn’t comprehend the nature of leadership, leaders and the people who aspire to be leaders, but as someone who has studied leadership for a long, long time as well as having done my share of leading (and leadership is one of the major topics of this blog), I must say that her comment is perplexing to say the least.
Leadership is a special role that requires special traits, talents and abilities, and one of those traits is believing oneself to be a leader while being willing to accept the responsibility leadership requires. The greater the responsibilities a leadership position entails, the more essential it is that a leader be confident in his or her ability to meet those responsibilities, and seek the burden they confer.
Stating that one does not trust people who want to be President to be President is like saying you only trust a doctor who never wanted to be a doctor. It makes no sense. Every one of our best and most acclaimed Presidents demonstrated their leadership abilities at a young age and actively sought leadership, proceeding to the next stage after demonstrated success. We have had a few reluctant Presidents, all Vice-Presidents thrust into a job they didn’t expect, and some, notably Chester A. Arthur, managed to overcome their lack of an appetite for leadership to do a workmanlike job. Other so-called “accidental Presidents,” notably Teddy Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, were natural leaders and thrilled to become President.
There are plenty of reasons to distrust the so-called “leader type.” Most, if not all are narcissists. Power does corrupt, and many who seek power and who are skilled in using it are also often drawn to the abuse of power for to less than admirable motives. Nevertheless, leadership requires confidence, a willingness to accept accountability, the courage to take risks, and a belief in the likelihood of success based on a history of success. Not wanting to lead strongly suggests an absence of these essential leadership traits.
Ethics Alarms 
(Sarcasm warning!)
Sure, Anne. Nothing inspires me with confidence in a leader like knowing they have no desire to lead. What an absurd statement from anyone with an IQ in the double digits!
It’s a simple line of attack used to disparage political opponents on the right, nothing more. It furthers the equation of aptitude and ambition with a hunger for power, which most people instinctively distrust. Note how no one ever said boo about Obama, Biden, or Clinton perhaps having moral deficiencies because they wanted to lead. Of all the things said about Hillary, this was never one of them, despite her desiring the presidency more than anyone else I can recall. Far simpler to imply that someone is power-hungry, and let it go at that.
“Nevertheless, leadership requires confidence, a willingness to accept accountability, the courage to take risks, and a belief in the likelihood of success based on a history of success. Not wanting to lead strongly suggests an absence of these essential leadership traits.”
If I were to break down the above (to which I agree whole heartedly) which of the two candidates for president have:
Confidence –
Harris I don’t think possess confidence base on her vocal patterns and shifting policy stances. Policy shifts indicate either there are none and whatever stated policy she uses is what the audience wants to hear or she is unsure of which direction to go on policy. Failure to be interviewed by unbiased media shows lack of confidence
Trump: His confidence level goes into uncharted territory – however sometimes being overconfident can be harmful. His policy stances vary little indicating he is confident he is right. Sometimes too willing to engage adversarial media
Willingness to accept accountability
Trump: Mixed feelings here- he blames others to often when things go wrong and fails at times to realize that some of the blame for failure is of his own doing. However, he is willing to and continues to sacrifice his wealth for the purpose of rebuilding America and the middle class the way he thinks is best.
Harris: I have yet to hear that she has made any mistakes and the there is no evidence that she cares. Evidence suggests that she berates subordinates when things go wrong in her estimation leading significant personnel turn over.
Courage to take risks:
Trump: He takes risks mostly calculated but some without thinking. No issue with the courage to speak his mind on policy topics
Harris: No evidence that she will take risks. Things appear choreographed for her by handlers. When confronted with questions on specifics she obfuscates by talking about everything but the issue at hand.
A belief in the likelihood of success based on a history of success:
Harris: yes on political matters. However her successes are based on either having a superior position in a power dynamic or through prevarication. She understands that she can make stuff up because the media will not question her and if they do she will use the misogyny/race card. These tactics have worked in the past. She has not demonstated any actual successes that benefit the average American and not her politically.
Trump: Yes on most matters. Unfortunately, his belief in success does not work as well in the domestic political arena regarding negotiation as it does in the private sector and when dealing with foreign leaders who have limited power to challenge him. This can be overcome by virtue of a power differential domestically.
I cannot ascribe leadership characteristics to Harris but I can to Trump for the above reasons.
The mark of a great leader is that the people are willing to put their trust in him or her and be willing to make personal sacrifices at the behest of the leader to achieve an agreed outcome. Those who think themselves to be leaders by being popular because they promise that others will have to pay the price to achieve the desired outcome are not leaders they are just mere members of the pack with a louder voice.
You cannot be a leader simply by marching in front of a group who decided for themselves what direction they will travel. They aren’t following you they are leading themselves.
Another great comment Chris. I believe an effective leader can articulate a vision and inspire others to join them in their quest to make it a reality. Sadly, we severely lack leadership in Washington and most state houses. Most politician’s priorities are to win elections and obtain personal wealth and power. Serving constituents is typically an afterthought.
So her argument is that “true” leaders (at least leaders that don’t trigger her distrust) should be reluctant to lead?
That’s not perplexing, it’s absurd. I don’t care how well-educated or erudite she is (or thinks she is), that’s what we call “crazy talk” around here.
Yeah, that was pretty much my reaction. I wonder about Ann sometimes.
“I wonder about Ann sometimes.”
Residing in the 77 Square Miles surrounded By A Sea Of Reality can get to the best of us…
PWS
But she writes so often about politics, and based on that post, is completely unaware of the dynamics of leadership! No wonder her analysis is quirky.
J.K. Rowling wrote that “It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it.”
it is a common trope and a misguided belief that ambition is somehow evil and those who seek power often seek it precisely so that they can abuse it or use it to gratify themselves. On the other hand, it is also a common belief that the best leaders are those who refuse the call or who seek to use very limited power. One example would be Cincinnatus, who was supposedly recalled from his farm to get the Roman army out of a tight spot, and immediately returned to his farm upon accomplishing that task.
For purposes of storytelling it sounds good, however, it is unlikely that you will actually see a real reluctant leader who was successful. Most leaders who were successful wanted to lead. Those who took up power they didn’t necessarily want and used it well, like Winston Churchill, are few and far between.
I do question Kamala Harris’s desire for power, since it appears that she does not really know what to do with it once she gets it. I also question the fact that she appears to be in the mold of Hillary Clinton as someone who wants to impose her personal views on everyone. In that respect, perhaps Althouse has something, but it’s not a general principle.
She could make a more interesting point by asking if we have made the price of leadership too high. Many people wanted Colin Powell to run for president, but I sensed that he didn’t want to do it because the price was too high. If he ran, it would have to be as a Republican, because he wasn’t a Democratic Party insider. As a black Republican candidate, he would get the Clarence Thomas treatment. He probably has some moderate level of skeletons in his closet and women would come out of the woodwork claiming he harassed or raped them. His reputation would be permanently be tarnished and he would face the perpetual ire of the mainstream media.
Only someone with supreme confidence and a near-suicidal desire to serve the country would run for President if they weren’t graced with party-insider annointing.