Watching the continued and increasing politicization of, arguably, this current generation’s greatest global challenge to date, we need to reflect on what we expect from our Nation’s leaders.
This essay reflects personal opinion and bias. It does not reflect the position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Army.
In the last 96 hours, the finger-pointing between state and federal elected officials grows with the same alarming rate as the spread of the COVID-19 Virus. In the next 96 hours, our Nation will experience unprecedented levels of limited and constricted movement and travel locally, between counties and states, and internationally. Stretched to the brink, states and the nation will look to the United States Army with a growing call for military intervention.
We can—and should—expect civilian and military leaders to make honest mistakes in the face of complex challenges, hardships, dilemmas, and difficult decisions. At all times, however, leaders must endeavor to demonstrate unimpeachable integrity and character. Leaders must be the moral and ethical compass for those they lead in order to instill trust. Why? Because in times of hardship and in the face of complex challenges, trust is the bedrock of effective leadership.
In 2012, Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. Raymond Odierno, wrote that being a leader is not about accumulating power, appearing to exercise control, giving orders, or cultivating image. Being a leader is about earning respect, leading by example, and inspiring others. To manage and command effectively, leaders must earn the respect of those that follow them by demonstrating honesty and integrity. Failure to demonstrate honesty and integrity, over time, leads to tarnished reputation, lack of credibility, and, ultimately, failed leadership.
In a series of high-profile interviews with national security elites, a recent study found that military elites, as a community, exhibit certain conceptual attributes that, taken together, make them exceptionally influential in the domain of national security. Some of these attributes include having a shared profession and ethos; strong organizational culture; possessing recognized expertise and knowledge; and demonstrating strong internal cohesion and intra-group trust.
Military professionals, even when they may vehemently disagree with one another, still exhibit these communal attributes because they ultimately trust one another to do the right thing. They expect members of their profession to uphold Army Values, to be honest, to tell the truth. These attributes are what make the Army, and the United States military as a whole, so trusted by American society. The prestige of the military rests on our credibility.
Understanding this dynamic is incredibly important in the context of national emergencies, global issues, modern war, and a complex strategic environment. Whether it is a global pandemic, natural disaster, and rioting in the streets or… rapidly advancing development of robotics, augmented reality, unmanned weapon systems, hypersonic technologies, space- and cyber-based capabilities, artificial intelligence, and cloud-enabled informatics… both drive policy process, decision-making, and mission command at an ever-increasing pace. Faced with national emergencies and global issues, elected officials increasingly look to the military and its senior leadership to take on the United States’ most complex, strategic problems.
In 2018, the RAND Corporation published an interesting book, Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life. The book explores an increasing “disregard for facts, data, and analysis” in our daily political and civil discourse in the United States. Opinions, anecdotes, and experiential narratives often replace the objective truth. But, who are the agents of truth decay?
Historically, the media has been blamed for blurring the line between opinion and fact, political bias and public good. As far back as the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville observed immense inadequacies in America’s free press. He noted that the media suffered from a lack objectivity and incalculable bias, and criticized it for being driven by profit. Tocqueville explained that we should expect the media to be both trivial and virulent in times of uncertainty and political tension. Regardless, he championed a free press as essential to the protection of American liberties and our democracy.
More recently, RAND finds that elected officials have been identified as agents of truth decay. Falsehoods, lies, immoral and unethical behavior, abuse of office and authority, unkept promises, and excessive partisan bickering all contribute to the erosion of trust Americans have in their governmental institutions. In a survey of Gallup Polls, interesting trends related to the media and elected officials surface.
For well over a decade, public approval of Congress, the presidency, the media, both political parties, and the government, as a whole, consistently falls below 50 percent. A majority of Americans consistently believe that our elected leaders will not do what is right for the public good. They will protect and enrich themselves, single-mindedly seek reelection, and aggressively protect their power. Likewise, the media, in a free market economy, will compete for market share, profit, and continue to exhibit bias.
Both the media and politicians, in the minds of most Americans, lie, mislead, and mischaracterize facts for political gain. Both are perceived as deliberately parsing the truth and sow divide in American society. Both are perceived as crooked and dishonest. Sadly, the biggest agent of truth decay is the individual–you, me, us, collectively.
Our cognitive biases. Our preexisting beliefs. Our reliance on mental shortcuts. These variables, taken together, have increased the influence that others have on us through social media and twenty-four-hour news cycles. We no longer take the time to discriminate between opinion, fact, and falsehood. We accept experiential narrative as truth. Finally, we allow our political differences and disagreements to cause in us an ever-greater contempt.
The world has repeatedly faced complex, even existential, challenges. As members of the Army profession, tasked to lead, fight, and win in today’s complex, strategic environment, we will inevitably make mistakes. We will face fear and irrational thoughts. Likewise, we will witness great courage and leadership. To this end, we must hold ourselves and our profession to a high standard. We must expect and demand moral leadership, both within our profession and across our governmental institutions.
As the United States and the world face the challenge of a global pandemic and we begin to see the incredible challenges the military may be called to confront, moral leadership matters. We must be able to trust both our elected officials and the news media to tell us the truth. Most importantly, however, we have an individual responsibility.
As Army leaders, we must be hyper-vigilant in protecting our profession. We must protect against partisanship in our ranks; against politicization of our profession; against contempt for those with whom we may disagree; and against a lack of intellectual curiosity to find and understand truth. Failure to hold ourselves and our leaders accountable risks squandering the public trust American society has in its Army and military.
Colonel Todd A. Schmidt, Ph.D., is a U.S. Army Goodpaster Scholar. The editorial comments, opinions and bias reflected in this commentary are his own and do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Army.