A “Leaderless” World? Hmm... Leadership and Trust

‘’—“”
In a recent article in the New York Times, David Brooks puts forward the view that political opinion in the US regarding leadership has significantly changed.  This is hardly news, but Brooks is talking about a very specific kind of leadership: US leadership in international politics, and our participation in it.

In his article he cites a recent (2014-3-7)  Pew Center survey report (Milennials in Adulthood) which reveals that in contrast to the Baby Boomer generation, of whom 40% responded that ‘most people can be trusted’, of Millennials (the folks just approaching adulthood at present) less than 20% responded this way.  Brooks’s theory is that this makes the younger generation less comfortable with entrusting international affairs to high-stakes diplomacy, or military intervention.

You need to read the entire article to get the subtleties, all of which are fascinating, of Brooks’s op-ed, but it all seems to depend on exactly why the Millennials --anyway, young people, let’s say-- responded this way.

The actual statement --see at right-- was: ‘Most people can be trusted, vs. You can’t be too careful in dealing with people.’

This is an unfortunately vague statement, whose interpretation is almost too broad to be useful.  If you mean:  “Can you trust a counter clerk to return a wallet to the Lost and Found?” the mistrust of a person means one thing, while if you mean “Can you trust the Rebels to hold off hostilities until the Convention is over?” it means something entirely different.  In both cases, however, a Millennial is likely to be less trusting than a Baby Boomer.

Why?

Because Baby Boomers started out being naive about the world, and even a long cold war and the missteps of the Vietnam War only adjusted their habits of thinking in specific ways.  Their mistrust was saved for “people over 35”, or people in politics, or whatever, whereas Millennials —and I might be generalizing where angels fear to tread— have been brought up to mistrust even Uncle Ed.  Millennials might think that Mom’s cautioning is a little over the top, but the steady diet of a certain kind of news in the media has had its results: There are people out there who are very . . .  different.

How does that fit in with the increase in diversity, the rise of women in politics, the significant presence of Latinos, Chinese and Vietnamese and Japanese in American Colleges, even Canadians!  A far greater proportion of American citizens come into contact with people of different ethnicity, both US nationals, and visitors or immigrants, in ways that are positive, in this century than in the last.  This must support a young person’s belief that people are differenter than their parents thought.  But, I suggest, they are probably comfortable with differences.

One must wonder what it is, in the vast arrays of assumptions that support the thinking of an idealist such as David Brooks, that leads him to interpolate between what he sees in world affairs and US responses to them, and the Pew Report, and his knowledge of the people around him, to arrive at the conclusions he does.  Clearly some of his conclusions are straightforward: Millennials are probably suspicious of military action, certainly more suspicious than older Americans.  The causes could be many, but I suspect that among them is the huge suspicion that neither Congress nor the Pentagon can be trusted to oversee a military action of any sort.

Millennials are probably —and I’m alarmed at how smoothly the term Millennials slides off my fingers— cautious about whether political conversations between foreign leaders, especially those who are non-Western educated, and American diplomats, are understood correctly by Our Side.  It is not just that the foreign leaders are being deceitful; leaders are invariably deceitful, including our own.  It is that deceit is less well understood today than it has been in the past; and you know what?  I wouldn’t be surprised that brighter Millennials are well aware of that.

[And here’s something else to think about, completely unrelated to David Brooks’s article.  Whatever deceit is involved in international diplomacy, the intolerant Christian Conservative Right can be trusted to make a big fuss about it, further muddying the waters.  One wonders what the Millennials think about that.  A pox on the Christian Conservative Right: may rabid dogs . . .  Sorry.]

One thing is certain: it is fascinating to analyze how the younger generation will approach political leadership and its problems.  I still see energetic and enthusiastic young undergraduates rushing to declare double majors in Business and Political Science, and I shudder.  I sincerely doubt whether we can continue to be guided by the received wisdom of those pseudo-disciplines.

Appendix: A summary of Brooks’s Article

The main thrust of the article is that there appears to be a trend towards less engagement in world affairs: military, political, business and economic.  This is not isolationism, says Brooks; he argues that while the younger generation distrust big actions by individuals, large corporations, or star diplomats, they do look favorably on person-to-person conversation and persuasion.  “The power is in the swarm,” he quotes.

The conclusion is that individuals tend to be less comfortable delegating power to others, simply because they don’t “have enough trust” in political leaders.  (I wonder whether Mr. Brooks has lost trust in the President over the years? Hmm.)

Do please read the article yourself; it is worth reading, not least because of the additional information there which I have not passed on to you.  There are a few deplorable lapses in clarity due to unclear uses of tense; something about which I am hardly in a position to complain.

Arch