With the recent upheavals in the presidential cabinet, it has often been observed that the most valuable quality in the current administration is that of loyalty.
Is it such an admirable quality?
We value the loyalty of our friends, who protect our good name when we are not present. We respect the loyalty of committed couples who remain true to each other regardless of external temptations. We recognize the loyalty of employees who stand by their ethics and keep competitors and enemies at bay. We value a soldier's loyalty to his commander, even unto death if necessary. We honor the faithful's loyalty to their god and their steadfast commitment to their tenets of faith. We equate disloyalty with betrayal, dishonor, treachery. We use names like Quisling, Benedict Arnold, Burgess and Hiss as epithets to express our revulsion and disgust.
But loyalty has a darker side. In crime families, loyalty means accepting death or imprisonment rather than exposing crime, violence and murder. In prison, the most despised inmate is the "fugitive" who cannot keep quiet about his knowledge of criminal acts, conspiracies and planned violence. In teenage and street gang groups, the rule of silence and absolute loyalty is an absolute requirement for permanent membership.
The old courts of kings and emperors were full of sycophants: whatever the leader wanted to hear, they offered. Disagreements and alternative plans for the direction of governance were seen as intrigues—dangerous differences of opinion to be rooted out and permanently removed from the body politic.
Where does the White House fit in? Despite all the positive connotations that loyalty can have, we need to look at the extent to which it is used and constantly monitor whether it is being misused. No one would suggest that the president surround himself with staff who constantly criticize his ideas or regularly publicly disagree with his programs and proposals. But the negative aspect of excessive loyalty—zeal—must be faced if the goal is to forge plans for the common good through compromise in the face of differing opinions.
The United States was born out of public political and ideological debate. While the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution shared basic beliefs, they did not hesitate to publicly disagree and argue in an effort to achieve the most viable goals. For more than two centuries, American political discourse has been more concerned with differences than celebrating similarities. Ordinarily, the frictions and arguments of elections translate into legislation and leadership that tries to bridge the gaps and bring everyone into the fold.
What seems to have changed is the willingness to allow different views and opinions to coexist. We have moved from a mentality that celebrates diversity and multiplicity to a narrow conception of what is right, absolutely right. Other opinions are not valued for the richness that their opinions add to the national fabric, but are considered bad, worthless, undervalued, dangerously unpatriotic. The White House's second term has purged its dogma, filtered our nuances and conflicting ideas until it all boiled down to a single voice of one man. The ditch around the believers has been filled in, the crocs have been released, and the land lies fallow under the keen eye of the true believers.
Arrogance and contempt, disguised as 'political capital', have the potential to translate into a level of power and intolerance that can only fuel the eventual inevitable corruption.
You must be logged in to post a comment.