Ashley Bobman

Leadership, Democracy, and a More Thoughtful Public

Final Essay
Rarely do dictionaries come to a consensus on the definition of a word or concept,
and society likewise cannot be expected to determine a uniform definition. A concept
that particularly defies concrete definition is that of persuasion. To some, persuasion
involves influencing people with pure intentions, while others may view it as
manipulation, which sometimes involves force. A related concept is leadership, and some
people believe that leadership involves persuading others to do what the leader
wants/believes is right by any means necessary. Others may say that to lead is to help
guide the public towards decisions that will benefit the collective majority. Ideally, a
commonality between all people would lie in the idea that leaders have an obligation to
those they lead.
Democracy and a more thoughtful public are intertwined within the system of
good leadership. The methods, conditions, thought processes, and overall worldviews
involved in leadership, democracy, and the public all lean on and have the ability to
greatly change one another. To make connections between these three broad concepts of
democracy, leadership and a more thoughtful public, one must look at the overlapping
values, themes, and necessities of each. The hope is to unify these concepts within the
context of good leadership, which must be both ethical and effective.

Effective Leadership
Leadership can be broken down into four basic components: persuasion, language
and forming arguments, information seeking, and assumptions about human nature.
Every individual uses persuasion both negatively and positively, unintentionally
and intentionally. The influence of an idea, the ability to persuade, is a huge part of
leadership. As Soder says in The Language of Leadership, if you cannot persuade others
of the rightness of your proposals and your view of what needs to happen, you will not be
an effective leader.
Persuasion can be broken down into three basic appeals: character (ethos), logic
(logos), and emotions (pathos). Through ethos, leaders enhance the legitimacy of their
character, making them appear more honest. Logos bases itself on facts and reasoning in
order to persuade those with a rational mindset. Pathos, when convincing, targets
emotions. Since feelings are more easily manipulated than facts or character, pathos can
be the most confusing and abused of the three appeals. Depending on the type of
response a leader hopes to evoke and the audience whom he hopes to inspire, he may try
to base his arguments on different appeals. One would hope that all three of these
approaches are integrated together into every argument in order to provide balance.
Appealing to only one or two of these components might be interpreted as manipulative;
thus this balance would help the leader convey a sense of sincerity in his actions. Of

Ashley Bobman
course, these are not the only forms of persuasion, but most attempts to persuade involve
one or more of these appeals.
Personally, I find pathos to be the most manipulative form of leadership because it
is often the easiest to use and most influential on an audience. Emotional speeches are
usually more inspiring then logical ones because they tug at peoples heartstrings. This
proves to be a problem when someone persuades with impure intentions. Peoples
emotions can overpower their rationale, and once someone understands this concept, he
can abuse it. Hence, it is also my belief that logos should be used more often than pathos.
Pathos involves both thought and a true concern for the decisions and ideas being
presented on both the leaders part and the publics part. However, logos proves difficult
to use successfully because different people can have contrasting analytical approaches;
thus I feel leaders sometimes shy away from logos despite the possible benefits of using
it. Good leaders are willing to put in the effort to make their arguments truthful and
powerful in order to avoid manipulation and to help nurture a more engaged public.
Because people frequently misuse persuasion, it often has negative connotations;
thus, people have developed an inherent tendency to ignore and distrust it. People want
to have their own ideas and voice, so naturally people are suspicious when they hear of
persuasion. They may associate persuasion with an unwanted imposition of ideas and
values onto others. In addition, sometimes people cannot determine the intent of the
persuader, providing another reason to shy away from it. When people think of
persuasion, many visualize sleazy, lying car salesman or advertisements full of false
promises. These images build upon peoples fear of being persuaded, making it an
unpleasant task on both ends of the persuasion. However, leaders cannot avoid the use of
persuasion simply because of the bad connotations; leaders should instead work to prove
these negative views wrong by persuading with good intentions.
Soder tells his readers that without the ability to persuade, leaders will have no
following, but persuasion is not the only critical aspect of leading. In order to persuade,
a leader must first form the necessary arguments. Forming valid arguments involves an
understanding of the various kinds of arguments and their appropriateness in a given
situation, as well as a knowledge of the impact of how we choose to communicate these
thoughts. Good arguments are useless if they are poorly conveyed. In Standing by
Words, Wendell Berry says that there are 3 conditions for a statement to be complete and
understandable: (1) it must designate its object clearly, (2) the speaker must be willing to
stand by it 100%, and (3) the relation of the speaker, word, and object must be known.
People shape language for their own purposes. While language should be a tool
of expression, we have allowed it to deteriorate over time. Thus, we fail to express
ourselves clearly and accurately. Over time, political leaders have become lazy with their
language and arguments, which makes persuasion and forming arguments more difficult.
Modern political language consists largely of vagueness and understatements, creating a
slight insincerity within the words themselves. Over time, some people have adjusted
and adopted this lazy language and are now too easily convinced by leaders, thus these
people act as a persuaded audience.

Ashley Bobman
Because the tone and type of argument can push for and evoke certain behaviors,
leaders must have a proper understanding of how to form arguments in different
situations. The way a leader forms an argument gives insight into his worldview and
assumptions about human nature. Soder explains this concept in a classroom setting:
how to convince a student of why they should study. There are so many possible
responses when asked why should I study, such as I will hit you if you dont, you
will become a better person if you do, you will find the subject interesting, and if you
study now you will have a better job in the future. It is not hard to envision the different
characters that would formulate these varied responses. Someone who has a negative
view of the world may think that physical force is the only way to convince the student.
Someone who uses a good education and job as an argument most likely has the childs
best interest in mind. We choose a line of argument, a way of talking and reasoning and
persuading, without, sometimes, a great deal of attention. But when we realize that
different terminology and ways of arguing show insight into our idea of how the world
works, we can see the importance in how we talk and form arguments.
As Soder says, sometimes the choice we make is not even a conscious choice;
we talk a certain way out of habit. I know I have a habitual way of talking. Personally,
I feel like now I should be more careful when I form arguments and I speak. There are
frequently occasions when I make a comment only to later find myself wondering, why
did I say that? That sounded silly, and I realize if I am having these thoughts, others
might think the same way. Whether or not we hold a leadership position, we should all
put more thought into how we speak and consider the implications of the way we form
our speech.
Even before leaders can form any argument, information must be sought. This
may sound like a simple task; however, information seeking can be quite challenging. If
done poorly, attempting to gather information could negatively affect a leaders ultimate
goal and give the wrong impression of a leaders true intentions. In this sense, seeking
information can be a dangerous undertaking, but not as dangerous as failing to seek
information.
When gathering information, a leader must first choose what information he
thinks he wants to gain. But, the real challenge begins after the leader has a sense of
what to look for. Who a leader seeks insight from and how he attempts to gain
information have their costs and potential traps. Even after a leader figures out how he
will gather information, he still needs to decide what information to share. Soder
provides us with the five basic principles of seeking information. Some individuals have
a tendency to say what they think the listener wants to hear, making honesty difficult.
Sometimes people feel a great need to withhold information because they fear that they
will appear foolish. A fear of the power and wrath of the leader also keeps people from
providing honest information if they feel that it will offend or enrage the leader;
therefore, leaders must create a safe and open environment to share information if they
seek the truth. Leaders must not let optimism keep them from seeking information from
people who might say something that the leaders do not want to hear. Finally, how a
leader goes about seeking information speaks to his character. How respectable can a

Ashley Bobman
leader be if he is willing to spy or lie about his intent and knowledge in order to gain
information from others?
A leader has a multitude of costs and risks to take into account. Seeking
information from everyone willing to share is physically impossible and will overwhelm
the leader. Further, if a leader allows everyone to give him advice, he will receive all
types of information, even the gossip and slander, and thus he will lose the publics
respect because, as Machiavelli said, when everyone can tell you the truth, they lack
reverence for you. However, ignoring relevant information from those willing to share
gives the leader a selfish reputation, as he will appear to only have his own interests in
mind. Thus, one must first determine how many people to seek information from and
who to ask. In addition, a leader must keep in mind that when he seeks information, he
automatically provides others with information. With so many factors to take into
account, a leader needs to find a balance: he must remain ethical and trusting, without
completely trusting that others will share information freely if he fails to do so on his
own.
Lord Chesterfield puts the difficulty of this task into perspective, stating it is
hard to say who is the greatest fool: he who tells the whole truth, or he who tells no truth
at all. Objectivity is key. We expect honesty and morals from everyone in society, not
solely the public or our leaders; however, we cannot expect humans to be moral and
honest all the time because it is not in our nature. Nevertheless, if we want to obtain
honest information, we must trust others. Leading involves a back and forth interaction
with the public. Having power does not necessarily mean acting alone, and seeking
counsel is often encouraged. Again, objectivity is critical in knowing from whom to seek
information. Who a leader seeks information from gives insight into his worldviews and
into his character. People could interpret a leader seeking information from people of
similar ethnicity, race, or social class as a statement about whose ideas he respects. A
public that keeps a watchful eye can and will read into every move a leader makes.
I mentioned previously that it is not in our nature to be honest all the time, which
is technically an assumption. But all of the defining aspects of leadership involve
assumptions about human nature. This prompts the question of what characteristics are
truly inherent of human nature? The generalizations about human nature will vary
between people depending on their worldviews, and an individuals worldview will help
shape his idea of human nature. A leaders worldview and outlook on human nature are
closely intertwined, and both affect the actions of a leader. Human nature proves to be
one of the greatest obstacles in leading. If a leader thinks that humans naturally cannot
keep a secret then he may rarely seek information from those not extremely close to him.
However, if a leader has too much faith in the honesty of people then he is more likely to
receive an excessive amount of false or twisted information. Assumptions about human
nature with regards to qualities such as patience, selfishness, honesty, and virtue are
intrinsically related to the actions of a leader. However, do leaders have the right to make
generalizations about human nature and decide on one all-encompassing definition?
Does anyone? Is this unfair to society because not everyone is the same? In fact,
diversity is in fact the quality that endows society with its utility when seeking

Ashley Bobman
information and advice. It almost feels unethical to make assumptions about human
nature.
Despite this potential ethical struggle, these assumptions become an integral part
of a leaders decision-making process because human nature affects every aspect of
leadership imaginable. It appears that selfishness and impatience prove to be part of
human nature, whether we like to believe this to be true or not. People often prove to be
too selfish to look past their time and what will affect them. And when we must look to
the future and can only improve things as long as you are prepared to wait, human
nature brings us to a screeching halt. As Stewart Brand says in The Clock of the Long
Now, what happens fast is illusion [and] what happens slow is reality, but our habitual
thinking process often turns us to what is sudden. Time and time again, humans
demonstrate impatience. The obvious solution is to take the time to fix the flaws that
potentially exist in human nature. However, as Brand points out, changing human nature
requires a long time to adjust, which involves patience. Ironically, we may not have the
patience to improve human nature with the hopes of increasing peoples natural patience.
While the idea of looking to the future is not necessary to be a good leader creating a
democracy, it is necessary to be a good leader sustaining a democracy.
Assumptions about human nature appeared during other sections of class as well.
During our discussion about reconciliation and reconstitution when things inevitably fall
apart, we focused greatly on revenge and forgiveness. When trying to reconcile
relationships or organizations through forgiveness, revenge often stands in the way. A
strong desire for revenge may sprout from peoples ability to hold onto anger and hate or
perhaps it is an attempt to keep faith with the dead as Michael Ignatieff writes in The
Warriors Horror. No matter what the reasons for clinging to the thought of revenge, it
clearly is a common emotion. It is as if our ability to hold onto past anger and hate is part
of human nature. The strong passionate anger from which revenge often develops cannot
be good for the group, but people fail to think of it in these terms because they are often
self-centered, yet another flaw of human nature. In fact, the desire for revenge often halts
the process of forgiveness, a necessary component when things fall apart.
These claims about human nature are not necessarily right, nor do I agree with
them. Everyones views on human nature inherently vary.
Machiavelli believes that men will always turn out bad for you unless they have
been made good by a necessity. This presents another question for consideration. If we
teach people at a young age and make them good by necessity when they are young and
influential, can we keep people from turning out bad? Until we try for a long period, we
may never know if there are any results. And even if we try, how would we measure
good and bad? Sometimes the difficulty lies in adjusting human nature more than in
defining it, although both hold a lot of weight in leadership.
Not all views on human nature are negative like many of the ones mentioned. As
Philoctetes, a character from Sophocles Philoctetes, says to Neoptolemus, you are not
bad yourself; by bad mens teaching you came to practice your foul lesson. People are
influential and thus human nature can be shaped and changed. Poor leaders can teach
people step by step to be clever in mischief against [their] nature and will, just as
Odysseus did to Neoptolemus. Odysseus establishes a negative view of human nature,
assuming that the moral approach will not work with people. Because of this

Ashley Bobman
preconceived view, he is willing to abandon morals when acting in hopes of reaching his
end goal, and thus he turns to trickery instead of honesty and persuasion. The picture of
human nature that a leader pieces together changes his methods of leading. At a point,
leaders have no choice but to make assumptions about human nature using their
observations and experiences if they want to have any sort of impact. And these
assumptions will alter and ultimately decide how a leader approaches a problem. This
brings up the question of how optimistic we want our leaders to be about human nature.
Soder provided us with an example of human nature in relation to ones actions
that I found fascinating. While it did not involve a prominent leader figure, it provides a
wonderful example of what can happen when people give others a higher calling. Soder
shared with us an article he read in Sports Illustrated about a football player. Apparently
as a child, he used to steal cars and one day he accidentally hit an elderly womans car
while driving a stolen car and so he ran. However, something in his conscience told him
to go back and make sure the woman was all right despite the fact that cops were chasing
him. When he went back the elderly lady told him to sit on her porch and when the cops
arrived she claimed he was her grandson. As soon as the cops left, she asked him why he
stole cars. What was his motive? The more he thought about this, the more he realized it
was wrong, and so he stopped. She didnt feel a need to turn him in to the police
probably because she did not see a thief when he came back to make sure she was not
hurt. Instead, the woman saw a kind person who went down the wrong path and then got
stuck. Because she held him to a higher standard, he then responded in such a way to
reach that calling. She took a leap of faith with him and he responded in a positive
manner, changing his actions and behavior for the better.
Personally, I like to think of myself as having two separate views of human nature
that I use to help me when making decisions. I consider one of my views an ideal picture
of human nature, or rather what I want to believe is inherent of people. This is my
forever-positive vision. My other view is less optimistic because it is based on my
experiences and encounters with other people. Since I am only eighteen with not a lot of
experience to base my views on, I assume my encounters are not diverse enough for me
to generalize how people tend to think and act. I like to think that having two views
helps me see the good in people while remaining realistic. However, it often proves to be
a problem because sometimes I second-guess myself as a result of my two different
mindsets.
An extensive discussion of effective leadership does not provide all of the
stepping-stones for a good leader. But before we can define a good leader, we must first
define effective leadership.
Most people would measure the effectiveness of a leader by his impact, but we
have no definite scale to determine what is a positive impact versus a negative one.
Determining this matter involves the conditions for a given society, which I will speak to
later. Defining a leaders impact directly after his reign may vary greatly from this
definition years later. Thus, I propose a different scale to define effective, good
leadership. Good leadership does not mean a leader is successful with his actions and has
an immediate impact. The impact of his actions may not be visible for many years to
come. Good leadership means he is successful in his moral obligations and use effective

Ashley Bobman
means. The means to the end defines this good leadership, not the immediate end results
itself. Lincoln is a perfect example of this.
According to Ralph Lerner, Lincolns appeals not to break these bonds of
affection came too late. In the land of the deaf, the forgetful, and the shrill, the mystic
chords of memory would be silenced by guns at Charleston Harbor. Lincoln failed to
prevent the civil war, but who says that was his sole goal. He may have failed to have an
immediate impact on society, but he abolished slavery, changing the future of the United
States, and thus is known for being a huge success. Lincolns goals were sincere and
moral and although not everyone liked him during his time, he later became viewed as a
role model for good leadership. In our class, we were asked if Lerners statement was his
way of saying that Lincoln failed to reach his goals as a leader. Attempting to argue that
Lincoln was not an effective or ethical leader baffles me, not that Lerner does this.
Sometimes people measure how successful something is based on how long it
took to get there, but this is immoral in a sense. If we measure Lincolns success by time,
then he may not be considered one of the greatest presidents. However, Lincoln took a
stand and confronted slavery, an issue that every preceding politician either avoided or
took the stance that would be less work. Just because Lincoln could not prevent a civil
war does not lessen his work towards abolishing slavery. Lincoln took a stand on a very
difficult issue and had an impact that clearly can be seen today in society, which proves
he was a very effective leader.
Not all effective leaders are good ones with the publics best interest in mind. A
truly good leader is both effective and ethical. All of these various aspects involved in
effective leading must be approached in an ethical manner, another idea that Lincoln
understood.
Lincoln had morals, a respect for the rights of the people, and trusted in the
people to be part of the decision making process. A good leader does not neglect any
moral obligations, not even the simplest and most obvious ones. As Ralph Lerner writes
in Revolutions Revisited, where others see a public wanting in belief, Lincoln sees a
public wanting in understanding. Lincoln, among a few other historical figures that
Lerner discusses, undertake[s] to make [his] public rise in some sense above itself. In
addition Lincoln respected the power of public opinion and truly believed that with it,
nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed.

Ethics and a More Thoughtful Public

Leadership is having influence and influence has ethical dimensions. As Soder
says, all choices involving aspects of communication and building relationships carry an
ethical weight; thus any means to help with persuasion include ethical choices. Since
leaders cannot be successful without proper use of persuasion and leaders are supposed to
represent the people, it follows that any means to help with leadership involves morals.
Thus, good leaders must act ethically, approaching the previously discussed aspects in a
moral light in order to be effective.

Ashley Bobman
Persuasion can be easily misused, which makes the task of ethical persuasion that
much harder for leaders. However, a leader must never resort to manipulation or force.
The information used to persuade must be correct and obtained in a righteous manner for
the persuading to be ethical.
When seeking information a leader needs knowledge of what must be done, what
it takes to persuade others of what must be done, and how the audience will likely
respond. Through a proper understanding of the principles, strategies, and costs of
seeking information, a leader can engage in ethical information seeking and thus ethical
leadership. Caotang advises, there is nothing special about leadership essentially it is
a matter of controlling the evils of biased information and autocracy. Leadership
involves a constant exchange of information, but information is useless if it lacks truth.
Often the easiest ways to receive information prove to have ethical issues. Lord
Chesterfield suggests that one should play dumb and pretend to be ignorant, allowing
information to come to oneself. Also, one need not be afraid to say something one knows
is wrong to allow others to correct the inaccurate information and explain what they
know. This way, one can avoid volunteering what one knows and avoid direct
questioning so that people are not suspicious. This strategy of seeking information
involves lying and deceiving in order to manipulate others into volunteering unsolicited,
but wanted information. We established that manipulation is unethical and we should
automatically know that lying is not a moral act.
So how can we find a way to get public opinions without being overwhelmed and
without losing authority or respect? We need a balance between always and never
allowing unsolicited information. Leaders need to understand they have obligations
when seeking information. Leaders are ethically bound to take in the input they seek to
maintain authentic relationships. Unless a leader plans to accept and consider the
information, then he should not seek it. Listening is just as important as persuading in
leadership.
Leaders are always obligated to those they lead. Not only do good leaders need to
have an ethical approach when leading, but they also have an ethical obligation to create
a more thoughtful public. At its base, leadership involves creating a persuaded audience,
but beyond this, it involves creating and sustaining a more thoughtful public. A
persuaded audience acts as a passive recipient of the messages leaders present, while a
thoughtful public provides the leader a society full of aware and active people. A more
thoughtful public is not necessarily un-persuaded though; a more thoughtful public is
active in decisions before allowing itself to be persuaded. This is necessary in order to
maintain a balance between independence and structural guidance, which keeps the
leaders ethical and the public active. A thoughtful public helps prevent a leader from
acting outside of the publics best interests.
Creating and sustaining a more thoughtful public can be difficult. As Raymond
Aron tells us, men must also have a certain taste for independence, a certain sense of
resistance to power. This resistance to power prevents a passive public. We have to be
persuaded at a young age to become a more thoughtful public. If we create and maintain
a more thoughtful public, we are more likely to respect civil discourse. In fact,

Ashley Bobman
democracy will only work if we maintain a more thoughtful public because a thoughtful
public will contemplate and question the information presented to them, while
maintaining a sense of its rights and responsibilities. Conversely, without democracy, a
more thoughtful public cannot exist. A more thoughtful public and a democracy must
nurture one another, and leaders must create an environment in which this can occur.
So why are leaders obligated to create an environment that will promote and
encourage the mindset necessary for a more thoughtful public? Because it is a leaders
responsibility to help maintain our society, and currently we strive for a democratic, civic
society. A leader is obligated to create an environment where information can flow
freely. Information must flow within the public, not just between the public and leader in
order to sustain this thoughtful public. Leaders are obligated to create conditions where
people have the time to get what they want. This will help create healthier relationships
between a leader and the public. In a group, truth is necessary to know where/what the
current reality is because if a leader does not take in the input he sought, he will stop
receiving the truth. Leaders need to have a profound respect for the dignity and worth of
everyone, and the same applies to the public.
Leaders are not only obligated to act for the good of the public in the present, but
also to look to the future and allow their obligation to posterity influence their actions.
As Soder points out, if someone wants to look ahead a long ways, it is very helpful to
look back a long ways. Thus leaders have an obligation to look to the past, present, and
future when leading, ensuring the occurrence of reconstitution and reconciliation when
things go wrong.
People have the same obligation to look to the past, present, and future; it comes
with being a more thoughtful public. The problem is that we have a short time frame
because we have a short history. This relates back to human nature: humans are naturally
impatient and often self-centered. It may be wrong and unethical to make these
assumptions, but based on observations of human behavior over time, these assumptions
appear true and may help leaders and the public improve society.
We look to our leaders to be ethical, but we also have our own ethical obligations
as a public. Maintaining a more thoughtful public requires the efforts of both the public
and the leader, thus we are obligated to make a conscious effort to be active in society in
order to be a more thoughtful public. Having a more thoughtful public is easier said then
done because it requires a long us. In fact, there is a distinct relationship between time
perspective and a more thoughtful public. As Stewart Brand explains, the long us
involves understanding that what happens slow is reality and the more gradual and
hidden the change, the more important it [turns] out to be. We must make an important
distinction: a more thoughtful public needs a long view, but a long view doesnt imply a
more thoughtful public. There are many components necessary to create a more
thoughtful public.
Being a more thoughtful public involves knowing when one is trying to be
persuaded so that one can act accordingly. This is not as easy as it sounds because people
persuade on a daily basis, whether they mean to or not. Just the other day I persuaded my

Ashley Bobman
roommate without trying. When my roommate said she did not like indie-rock music, I
asked if it was all right to play it on speaker anyways because I think it is great music.
After a couple days of that, she didnt want me to turn it off because she suddenly
decided that she liked it. I had persuaded her that indie-rock music is good
unintentionally and I do not even think she realizes I influenced her. If people can be
persuaded about minute things without realizing, imagine the implication this could have
for people in society on a larger scale.
How we shape leaders and how our actions and our attention to what our leaders
do can set a precedent for the type of leaders we want, yet another reason why we need a
more thoughtful public.
This thoughtful public also has a moral obligation to respect and accept the
diversity of others viewpoints. One way to make this possible is to start with a common
focus, a shared vision, when working in groups. Be genuinely curious about how other
people think and feel. Everything involves balance, even in the context of building
relationships. A balance of trust allows people to know at what point to stop saying, if
you dream it you can do it and start being honest and realistic without hurting someones
feelings. The problem is that trust takes a long time to build up, but in one moment, it
can all be destroyed to the point where it may not be recoverable. Trust is one of the
many conditions of democracy that Soder presents.
Not only is there an ethics to leadership and moral obligations for the public, there
is also ethics within democracy, but before we can touch on this, we must understand
how leadership varies when under a democracy.

Under Democracy
To understand how these aspects and ethics of leadership and persuasion affect us
we must compare leadership in the context of politics. As previously mentioned, I
believe persuasion uses influence in the absence of force while manipulation involves
persuading through deception and sometimes force. Manipulation removes the need to
be thoughtful and attempts to restrict individual freedom; thus it can be considered
persuasion without the context of democracy.
Leadership and politics are greatly connected, especially in how politics and its
culture shape leadership. Political cultures range from relatively free in democracies to
the lack of freedom of despotism. Logically, leadership is inherently different in
democracy then in other regimes because civic culture is necessarily different from
despotic culture. In despotic cultures, one ruler makes all the decisions while the
population acts as a passive element; thus despotism is often associated with a lack of
freedom and disregard for human life. Democracy includes elected officials, free and fair
elections, inclusive suffrage, right to run for office, freedom of expression, and an open
exchange of information. These two very different social structures require different

Ashley Bobman
traits of a leader, but before we look at this, we first must consider the conditions
necessary to create different societies.
The definition of democracy varies with personal opinion, so I will look at
democracy in the same context as Soder. Democracy denotes a government characterized
by freedom, constitutionality, and democracy in a republican state. The difficulty lies in
developing and maintaining democracy, not in establishing it. Soder presents us with
twelve conditions necessary for sustaining an authentic democracy, many of which often
fall apart in society. Some of these really resonated more than others in my mind.
Long-term relationships are necessary for political and social interactions in a
democracy, and without trust, these relationships are impossible. Trust is difficult
because once one opens up one becomes vulnerable. Personally, I like to believe I am an
honest, good person, but I keep information to myself all the time because I have trouble
trusting others. If many people are like me and they feel that they cannot trust people
with knowledge of little facts, then we cannot expect people to always trust their leaders
to be honest nor can we believe that the people will have enough faith in the rest of the
public. We cannot expect everyone to want what is best for everyone else; we cannot
even expect leaders to do this. But without any trust, a more thoughtful public can
become a more paranoid public; thus we must build trust every time an opportunity
presents itself.
Soder presents freedom and an understanding of the tension between order and
freedom as two separate conditions because they must be treated as completely
independent. Freedom sets democratic societies apart from other forms of government
and thus I find freedom to be the most critical component of democracy. Government
implies structure and order. Without order, society would fall into anarchy and powerhungry people would take over, ultimately leading to despotism and a loss of freedom.
Overly stressing order and imposing structure can lead to a loss of freedom as well.
However, order is necessary to preserve peoples freedoms. Thus, there is a constant
tension between order and freedom. The question arises of how much freedom are we
willing to give up for order.
In the chapter about the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevskys The Brothers
Karamazov, the Grand Inquisitor speaks to Jesus of his belief that people do not want
freedom and cannot handle freedom. In fact, he thinks there is nothing more seductive
for man than the freedom of his conscience, but there is nothing more tormenting either.
Here Dostoevsky comments not only on freedom, but also on human nature. Humans
seek stability and order because they cannot handle the burden of freedom. According to
the Grand Inquisitor, those in power are obligated to help the people avoid the
overbearing weight of decision-making and freedom. His assumptions about human
nature and freedom arise from a lack of understanding of the tension between order and
freedom. This failure to meet a condition for democracy results in the Grand Inquisitor
pushing for a different government, one that reminds me of soft despotism. Instead of
giving people freedom, the people would have an illusion of freedom and would develop
obedience to their rulers. Freedom is not necessarily a good condition if poorly
approached, a valid point; however, this is where an understanding of the tension between

Ashley Bobman
freedom and order becomes key. In my eyes, freedom is inherent of people, but what
people do with it varies.
In Democracy in America, Tocqueville speaks of the need to develop, the taste
for freedom and the art of being free. This form of freedom must be taught and nurtured
like a skill. People need to understand what being free in a controlled society means.
French philosopher Raymond Aron claims that It is not enough to have the institutions
of freedom: elections, parties, a parliament. Men must also have a certain taste for
independence for freedom to be authentic. Having the necessary conditions does not
always imply a democracy, just the possibility for one. We need both the components
coupled with the mindset for authentic freedom if we want to avoid soft despotism.
Tocqueville also expresses his concern that the government will restrict freedom
over time. People think that they have guaranteed personal freedom, when it is to the
government of the state that they have handed it over. We assume that because we elect
our officials, we continue to have power, even if obedience becomes the natural tendency.
Since the shift to soft despotism is very subtle, it is hard to pick up on. According to
Tocqueville, despotism will hinder, compromise, and weaken the nation until the nation is
nothing more than a herd of timid sheep with the government for a shepherd. By
allowing ourselves to develop an overly dependent nature, we remain a persuaded
audience. We must avoid this dependence if we want to prevent soft despotism and keep
our freedoms. When we rely too greatly on the government then we become the sheep.
If Tocqueville is right in his fear and our government does become despotic, our leaders
will most likely have different approaches to change. Despotism is often associated with
a lack of freedom imposed by one person or group who makes all the decisions. Leaders
in this situation seek people who will follow orders without question because they focus
on absolute power, and the compliance necessary to maintain it.
Should leaders in a despotic society really be considered leaders if they use force
and manipulation to gain followers? Based on previously discussed definitions, they are
bad leaders. A leader in a despotic society can act unethically and then justify this
behavior more easily. A leader in a despotic society uses force and manipulation to gain
their followers and control them through fear. Because leaders in a despotic society feel
no need to be in good favor with the audience, they lack the motivation to act ethically
and in the peoples best interest. Without a lower risk of being kicked out of office since
most people fear the leader and without elections to keep the leader in check, leaders in a
despotic society can act as tyrants. There is no need to allow for a constant flow of
information when the leader wants an obedient, persuaded audience. Leadership in a
despotic regime calls for the creation of a passive society and pushing for this obedience
and intensely structured order is unethical. A leader in this regime has more opportunities
to act unethically and often takes advantage of this.
On the other hand, elected leaders face a greater risk of losing their positions, and
thus they behave in a more lawful manner and try to act ethically when leading. As
Robert Conquest notes, in a civic culture, decisions are made with a balance of interests
in mind, instead of the passive decision-making processes in a despotic culture. In the
context of democracy, leadership focuses on persuading by ethical means and teaching
the public to uphold moral responsibilities. To ensure the public is happy, leaders want to

Ashley Bobman
ensure that all groups feel that they are heard. Leaders work to create an environment
that encourages an open exchange of information. Instead of passive acceptance and
silence, we find outward skepticism and open criticism, welcomed by the leader. In my
opinion, leaders cannot truly lead without citizens to support society through knowledge,
understanding, and curiosity. As Pericles notes in democratic civic cultures, our
ordinary citizensare still fair judges of public matters; for unlike any other nation, we
regard the citizens who take no part in these duties not as unambitious but useless.
When thinking of this in terms of the ethics of leadership, I cannot help but
wonder do leaders have an obligation to struggle for the conditions of democracy and to
struggle against soft despotism? Democracy cannot survive without maintaining
necessary conditions, which must be learned, and the type of leadership that exists in
democracy cannot survive without some sort of thoughtful public to help prevent the
leader from acting outside the publics interests. This demonstrates the importance of
leaders recognizing the connection between their roles, democracy, and educating the
public.
We have to shape our culture so it remains democratic and leaders must act within
the context of free and open democracy while behaving within our culture. Schools are
key in how we shape our culture. School need to emphasize the morals we want our
culture to be based upon and teach the conditions necessary for democracy so that
children learn about sustaining our society early on. In addition, schools need to
persuade people at a young age to become a more thoughtful public.
One of Soders favorite examples of leadership in action involves schools.
Schools and teachers came up often in our discussion of leadership. In general, I found
this idea very interesting because I never looked at teaching from this angle. Teaching is
often not elevated enough like other professions, but a lot more goes into good teaching
than many, including myself, ever realized.
During our class, we were fortunate enough to hear from Dr. Mike Copland who
spoke specifically about being a good teacher. Measuring good teaching involves
looking at how a teacher interacts with students, how students interact with the teacher,
and the behavior of the student standing alone. This parallels measuring certain aspects
of good leading: how a leader interacts with the public, how the public interacts with the
leader, and learning to be a good public. Teachers goal should be to get students to take
an active role in their own learning. A friendly, open environment usually helps so that
everyone feels that they can speak up and have a voice, just like the environment a leader
wants to create for a thoughtful public. In order to close the gap between students,
teachers need to have higher expectations. By making people unhappy with the status
quo, then the status quo will move up with new, higher expectations. Leaderships must
also have higher expectations. If a leader holds the public to higher standards, then the
public will become more involved with the actions of the leader and thus become more
thoughtful.
When creating a sought after democratic regime, we need to understand the role
of schools in helping us get there. According to Soder, people are not born inherently
knowing the conditions for democracy, so people must learn these conditions. This is
where schools come into play in developing democracy. Schools should teach people at a
young age of their moral and intellectual responsibilities for living and working in a

Ashley Bobman
democracy. Schools must be structured in ways that reflect the teachings and the
curriculum must focus on teaching the conditions. Before we can hold teachers
responsible for teaching kids moral and intellectual responsibilities, we must ensure that
they have their own extensive education and understanding of what these responsibilities
entail. A great deal of the responsibility of teaching people what it means to act within
democracy falls on teachers. As previously mentioned, the concept of freedom in a
controlled society must be taught and nurtured. Developing a taste for freedom takes
time to adjust ones mindset. If people learn these concepts at a young age, less
adjustment will be necessary later. Along the same reasoning, people have to be
persuaded to become a more thoughtful public at a young age. This is why teachers are
critical in developing the correct mindset for democracy.
Both teachers and leaders should feel ethically obligated to create all of the
conditions of democracy for the public and the best way is through education in schools.
Teachers prove to be a wonderful example of leaders in society because schools, and thus
teachers, help to shape the mindset of our society.
A lot of thought and work goes into implementing good leadership and
understanding its function in creating and sustaining democracy. However, this does not
even begin to approach the function of leaders in recovering and reconstituting when
things go wrong. Everything falls apart at some point; no matter how good the leader or
how thoughtful the public, it is inevitable because of the depth of human emotions and
various motivations. Thus, we must deal with how to approach things falling apart. As
previously discussed, leaders have an obligation to have a long view when making
decisions, so a leader must be willing to alter deep structures when society struggles.
Sustainable reconciliation and reconstitution involve changes that have long-term effects.
As Soder said, given that things do fall apart, we have to engage in a process of
reconciliation and reconstitution not to recover the past but to make a better future. An
understanding of what needs to be done when things go wrong is crucial. Sustaining
organizational environments that are both productive and ethical is key, and this involves
making structural changes in order to keep up with the constantly changing conditions of
society.
There are numerous approaches to reconciliation and reconstitution, but only
some are appropriate for an ethical and effective leader to employ. When things fall
apart, leaders should approach the situation ethically through patience, listening,
forgiveness, and negotiation. In order to do this properly, leaders must remain honest
with themselves about the situation at hand. A leader need not be ashamed that things fell
apart or be afraid to make mistakes if they want to learn and grow and help society do the
same. However, leaders also must be able to acknowledge their errors and move forward.
Moving forward must be recognized in the context of a free and open democratic society.
As Gesine Schwan suggests, true forgiveness, real renewal, has to come from a
voluntary, inner act, we have to recognize that[we] have to fall back on free discussion
and persuasion. However, this moving forward does not mean forgetting in fact Soder
specifically says that to forgive and forget is the wrong approach. Without forgiveness,
we stay at war with one another and nothing is fixed. But when we view past conflicts as
irrelevant, we fail to learn and we forget to build off of past teachings and plans from

Ashley Bobman
previous leaders, organizations, or people. We have to find a way to forgive and let go of
our grudges in order to reflect on the past and learn from our mistakes without being
filled with anger because not recognizing the past, not coming to terms with the truth, is
costly and debilitating for all parties. In addition, since everything exists in relation to
other things, leaders must have high expectations for the public if they wish to reconcile
and reconstitute. Leaders must also insist on receiving the truth to engage all parties in
honest reflection and discussion.
With all the work involved in reconciliation and reconstitution, one might wonder
why a leader would bother to put in the time and effort if the long-term effects will not be
in their lifetime. This refers back to ethical obligations. Leaders have an obligation to
the people they lead as well as a responsibility to future generations, a responsibility
which society shares. Thus when leaders make changes they must take into consideration
the long-term effects of their actions. A plan for reconciliation and reconstitution is
useless if it involves a quick fix that will fall apart again after the leaders term. In
reality, a short-term change does not really count as any change at all since soon after it
has an impact, the effects will disappear. However, we struggle with plans for long-term
reconciliation and reconstitution because the public expects to see immediate impacts so
that they know if the leader is or is not making progress. But true change, effective
change, takes time. It helps everyone if we see things in a much broader perspective for
future generations. We need a public to understand this if we expect a leader to do what
is necessary to maintain a long now. Equally as important is having leaders who
understand that a long now is more important than seeing an immediate impact. As I
learned at Harborview, incremental but sustained changes are better than larger
immediate changes that arent sustained. Both leaders and the public could benefit from
getting some small successes under your belt before taking on bigger challenges, as I
learned while volunteering.
If things fail to improve once they fall apart, then the leader has failed to fulfill all
of his duties. Creating an environment in which relationships can develop and thrive
within the conditions of democracy is always part of a good leaders job. This includes
creating and sustaining the conditions for democracy as well as fulfilling the
responsibilities for reconciliation and reconstitution.

Conclusion
Personally, I feel this class has helped me understand how to be more thoughtful.
Assuming others in the class had a similar experience, then Soder successfully created a
more thoughtful public in a classroom setting. While this may sound like only a small
feat setting, we have seen just how vital schools are in shaping the public and democracy.
Leadership, democracy, and a more thoughtful public are deeply interrelated and
must all be present in our attempt to create a more ideal society. Good leadership and a
more thoughtful public are necessary for democracy to last and thrive. Likewise, a more
thoughtful public cannot exist without the context of democracy.

Ashley Bobman
A truly good leader in a democracy puts the peoples needs before his personal
needs. Under the context of democracy, a leader works to be ethical and effective, to
create a more thoughtful public, to uphold democracy and its values, and to educate
others about his endeavors.