Leading By Example

MORAL LEADERSHIP is a tenuous concept. It becomes tangible only when a person or group of people behave so admirably that others are inspired to emulate them, and the emulation can be verified. It is not always easy to ascertain whether any particular behavior or action is in fact performed in imitation of anyone else's actions, and people are not always honest in disclosing attributions. Often, if not usually, the true motives of people and nations are purposely concealed. Some people have expressed concerns that under Trump the United States is at risk of forfeiting its moral leadership among nations. My response is that the United States does not have nor has ever had moral leadership of the world, but rather has had and often exercised economic and military dominance, always for its own benefit, or more specifically the benefit of its corporate ruling class, which is an entirely different matter. In a world dominated by a species of beings both peaceful and aggressive, economic and military dominance can be easily mistaken for moral leadership. Might, as they say, makes right. The French third estate, consisting of ninety eight percent of the population, had among its members admirers of the American Revolution, and sought, with some degree of success, to emulate it. This is the first example of anything resembling moral leadership displayed by the nascent United States. Throughout the nineteenth century, examples of any kind of American moral leadership are mostly nonexistent. The United states was admired mostly for its land, resources, and optimism, as popularized by Alexis de Tocqueville in his study of America in the eighteen thirties. But this is more an admiration of the unique peculiarities of a cultural exception rather than any moral leadership. America's entry into World War One, the assistance it provided in bringing about the defeat of imperial Germany, and the leadership of Woodrow Wilson in advocating a moderate approach to the the Treaty of Versailles garnered respect in some quarters, as the United States for the first time demonstrated actual leadership on the world stage. its failure, however, to ratify the League of Nations agreement or to even join the new organization quickly nullified that. The belatedly entry of America into World War Two did nothing to engender any morel leadership for the country, but the crucial role it played in the defeat of Germany and japan, and its vast assistance in rebuilding both countries earned the respect of the world community. In the post World War Two era, the United States very forcefully informed the world that, as the world's only superpower left relatively intact, it intended to exercise global hegemony, and this hegemony, manifested by the maintenance of a global empire consisting of its military and economic domination, coupled with an incessant torrent of lip service about its dedication to democracy and freedom, have given rise to the notion that the United States has actually exhibited moral leadership. American post war foreign policy has consisted in an endless prosecution of foreign wars of aggression and destabilization and removal of foreign governments adverse to American corporate investment. American post war domestic policy has consisted largely in resistance to and deflection of populist appeals for a reasonable degree of economic and social equality. In its conduct of neither foreign nor domestic policy has the United States historically behaved, nor does it currently behave in a manner consistent with any reasonable definition of moral leadership. The salient point is; so often have American assertions championing democracy and freedom been belied by actual American policy, both foreign and domestic, that no serious scholar of twentieth century history is willing to give unqualified approval to the notion that the United States does, or ever has in reality, exercised moral leadership around the world. In fact, considering the current chaotic state of the international order, and the fact that even the existence of the United Nations and other organizations have failed to establish and maintain anything resembling a stable, acceptable state of affairs among nations, it could well be argued that the absence of any moral leadership, from the United States or anyone else, is precisely the problem.