The Kings We Deserve

“...No! But there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”

1 Samuel 8:18 ESV

Who would not follow a great leader? Charisma, determination, and wisdom epitomized in one lofty figure that we can all get behind. Who in our history shines brighter than a great leader? Names like Queen Victoria, Emperor Augustus, George Washington, and Mahatma Ghandi dot our stories like brilliant stars, inspiring generations with their deeds. When glory is had it is our leaders who seized it. When nations prosper, it is our leaders who brought us to greener pastures. When lions prowl at our doors and the specter of evil darkens the sun, our leaders defeat the monsters and deliver us into victory.

Who would not oppose a tyrant? Despotic sociopaths bent on seizing power and oppressing free peoples. Who in our history is more despised than a tyrant? Names like Emperor Caligula, Queen Mary I, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin stand as black marks on the human story, inspiring hatred for generations. When devastating wars break out it is the tyrant who started them. When millions die in waves of repression and genocide, it is the tryrant who thrust us into hell on earth. When sickness and starvation choke the nation and evil doers stand unopposed, it is the tyrant who drags us into the abyss.

In the 20th century, we are given a poignant reminder of what happens when power is centralized in the office of one man. But Hitler, Stalin, and Mao provide us with more questions than answers in reality. With the truly absurd number of deaths associated with these three and the massive scope of their despotism, a simple explanation of “they were monsters” seems wholly insufficient. Not the least dubious reason for this insufficiency is that tyrants gain their power from social contract just like any government, as predatory as it may be and with as many or few signees as there may be. Hitler could not have commited genocide alone, and the people who gave him the power he had did so for their own reasons. It is to this point that more thought is surely needed amongst free people.

It is easy enough for the 21st century person to decry tyranny and despotism while simultaneously blaming all the problems of the world on our leaders. It is reasonable to assume that every American, at one one point or another, has attributed societal, economic, and most certainly political ills to whichever president sits in the White House. It is easy to do; people have a propensity for shifting blame and who else deserves more blame than the person with the most power? One need only look to the oft sarcastic trope “thanks, Obama” or the commonly monikered “Trump Derangement Syndrome” phenomenon to see recent evidence of leader blaming. Addressing these examples as cliches does not excuse their subjects of any wrong they may have committed, but it does show that we are often quick to blame central figures, arguably to the point of distraction. Predictably enough, we often don’t attribute the good in our lives to our leaders, at least not to the same degree as we attribute ills. It is not until a new leader rises that we begin to grow nostalgic of the last one, often for the purpose of unfavorable comparisons to said new leader. The reasons for this are likely manifold, but it seems obvious that we as humans look to our leaders with an almost obsessive disdain when we disagree with them. We assign them any and all blame for the frustrations and calamities we experience, and we only seem to laud them in defiance of people we disagree with. Even when a leader appears beloved by the masses, it is often for the unfulfilled promises they make and only when their image is fresh.

Attention must also be given to human propensity to devote undeserved reverence to certain leaders. As mentioned above, it seems that this reverence tends to happen out of nostalgia more than merit, with sentimentality for the USSR amongst former Soviet citizens being a particularly telling example. But that is not to say that all leaders are hated in their own times. FDR was well loved during his time for being America’s stalwart leader during World War II, and even the unfavorably remembered George W. Bush received staggeringly high approval ratings in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. These examples show a distinct human tendency to rally behind our leaders during crises, particularly those involving foreign actors. Charisma can also affect our view of leaders, be it shallow reasons like physical attractiveness or speaking talent and a well kept public image. For whatever the admitted reasons may be, it seems that a leader's ability to unify instead of divide may be the most certain determinate for approval. But this is not always a good thing, as people can be unified under terrible sentiments, and universal devotion should be cause for concern no matter which nation is in question. If we blindly follow the guy who says the right things, we may miss the power grab happening right before our eyes. If a leader is lauded endlessly while their opponents are maligned, we risk political tunnel vision, missing the burgeoning disaster as it mounts before us. People like a good leader, and we seem to be willing to sacrifice transparency to follow one. Sadly, it seems we have a difficult time evaluating our leaders in a historical context until they become historical.

America is an interesting model for what is quickly revealing itself as, at least, an excess of concern for executives. In a country where it was never meant to matter, where the entire idea of one-man rule was antithetical to its nature, we still find ourselves obsessed with the office of the President. Voter turnouts are never as lively as during a presidential election, despite the fact that the president is likely our least direct representative. We place massive importance on our singular national leader while ignoring the local offices that actually affect our day to day lives. It is well enough to claim these admittedly tired points, but it is of utmost importance that we ponder the reasons why. Our own imperfection, sin if you will, manifests itself quite clearly as a distaste for personal responsibility. When we justify self destructive behavior and negligence, we do so in defiance of our own authority over our lives. If we are hellbent on continuing to ruin our own lives while complaining about it, eventually we will need someone else to blame. In short, a great and powerful leader is an easy scapegoat for “everything that’s wrong in the world”. Inversely, that same powerful leader can be seen as a savior and insta-cure for all our ills, especially in contrast to a leader we dislike. Both views are fundamentally untrue, self-serving, and above all dangerous. Proliferation of the former view leads to revolution and mob rule, with images of Revolutionary Tribunals putting masses of people under the guillotine. The second view sees crowds of uproarious Germans hailing the rise of their beloved Führer. This is said not to ignore the nuance surrounding said examples, but only to provoke consideration for the possible thought processes amongst the populations involved. Fallen Man will do nearly anything to avoid the weighty burden of responsibility, and if we allow ourselves the vice, nothing feels more natural than giving that responsibility to a king.

With the burden lifted, it is overly optimistic to assume that we can continue with the behaviors and beliefs that drove us to crowning our king. Perhaps for a moment we feel as though the future is bright and our troubles are over. The good strong king will lead us to victory over our enemies and enforce equity among his grateful people. But we know this is a pipe dream. We know that despots sew inequity and destroy liberty. Yet sometimes, more often than not, subjects end up towing the line and enduring despite their lack of liberty and the impossibility of utopia under their king. If the king manages to walk the line between oppression and security, he can avoid the eruption of revolution and he and his heirs can subjugate the people for generations. Humans are social creatures who organize into hierarchies instinctually, so it is natural for us to submit to a leader, as long as our needs are met and there is some semblance of social mobility. But even if there is no social mobility, history seems to tell us that an entire population can be broken and exploited, at least for a while. When the facade fades and the Great Leader is exposed for the Tyrant he is, bloody revolution is soon to follow, if it’s not too late. The price of shirking responsibility is paid to our leaders in either sweat or blood.

It is likely that we will never shed that basic need for leadership, that primal instinct to form hierarchies, but that does not mean we cease to be individuals. In the United States, we are guaranteed liberty, perhaps the most beloved and quintessentially American quality one might think of. But there is a price for that liberty, and it is responsibility. The burden of choice is consequence, and Americans are granted the freedom to choose, even if those consequences are dire. Imperfect as we are, the great temptation of blame is ever present, but liberty demands we resist blame and claim power and agency for our own choices and their consequences, for if we do not, the next Tyrant will.