Traditional American Leadership

In the life and death battle to save the planet what will good leadership look like?

Have you been curious about the characteristics America has looked for in its leaders? It is something I have pondered since I picked up my Dad’s book on General Ulysses S. Grant. The qualities that made him one of the most respected military and presidential leaders in all of history were also qualities he shared with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and other United States greats.

As a youngster, I was impressed by Grant because he was a kid from humble beginnings, learned to be a great horseman and became a brave warrior.  He was also no stranger to hard work and kept his family fed one winter by cutting, splitting, and selling firewood. In my teens I felt these where admirable characteristics.

Of course, there is more to leadership.

​A few months ago, on public radio, I was listening to a remarkably interesting program on presidential leadership. One guest, a young Christian woman, took the position leaders do not need to possess good character. She felt a leader need only support programs she and her followers desired.

The other guest on the show was a senior pastor and Christian magazine editor. He insisted good leaders come from morally grounded people.

Prior to settling in that evening, I picked up my Bible. The next reading was Mathew 7: 15-23. In short it says you can only get good fruit from a good tree. I thought it quite a coincidence after the lively discussion I had listened to.

Since we all want good fruit, in this case solutions to avoid climate catastrophe and other problems afflicting us, what characteristics in a person make them a good tree?

Traditionally, America’s most admired characteristics were stoicism, modesty, self-discipline, tenacity, humbleness, foresight, courage, prudence, and common sense all gained by experience and education.

After a long lapse of study, I decided to learn a little more about General Grant, but this time I wanted deeper insight. I found a book by General Horace Porter who served as one of the General’s aides. The goal of his book, “… to describe minutely Grant’s personal traits, habits, and explain the motives which actuated him…” is a fascinating description of the times, the war, and the man.

Grant was a man who had his ego so under control that the thought of his own well-being, his status, or his legacy never entered his mind. His focus was always service to country, the men and women under his command, and his family.

I cannot say whether the manner he dealt with people was one that came from an inner compass he was blessed with, or if he developed a way to bring out the best in his staff, his lieutenants, and his soldiers by practice.

Grant was polite to the core. He treated everyone with respect no matter the person’s status, rank, race, gender, or even which side of the conflict the person was on.

As the ultimate commander, he was both supportive and critical of his lieutenants. If the lieutenants were doing well carrying out his orders they were publicly praised. If they were not performing up to his expectation criticism was levied only in private. His generals and soldiers were given credit for success and he looked to himself when faced with failure.

His staff was free to speak their minds. At the mess table he encouraged the free flow of thought with one exception. He did not tolerate criticism of others. Even his enforcement of this rule was discrete.  He did not admonish the offender but simply changed the subject with a commanding tone of voice.

He was slow to anger. In fact, in all those years of service with Grant, General Porter knew of only two instances he had given way to anger.

General Grant was a gentleman. He treated and spoke of women with respect. An offending soldier, who he witnessed mistreating a woman, was immediately administered corporal punishment by the general himself.  

The other incident was when the general witnessed a mule team being mistreated.  Grant was an expert at training and managing horses and mules. The man beating the mule, after ignoring the General’s orders to cease the abuse, was tied to a tree with a sign.  The sign, in sight of the marching Union Army, simply informed the soldiers this is what happens if you mistreat your animals.

As a product of the military, I would like to note how our military system works. It is similar to the executive branch of governments. The system is called command and staff. Decision making comes down to one person, the commander. But successful commanders surround themselves and listen intently to experts called staff officers. The commander assembles around him, the best minds he can. From these advisers he crafts his plans.

Grants ability to listen intently, observe keenly, and issue clear orders no matter what was going on around him is legendary. In the Civil War, generals were within rifle and artillery range. Grant was one of only two people Porter observed who never flinched as rounds detonated near him.

Respect for science and the laws of nature are another common thread of great leaders. One of the classes Grant had done well in at West Point was science. A lot of money and effort was expended by our federal government during the Civil War investing in science to gain advantage. It is not coincidental the National Academies of Science came into being during the Civil War. The NAS is a private non-profit society of distinguished scholars. It was established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. The NAS is charged with providing independent and objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. I think it noteworthy all national science academies, worldwide, are warning their citizens and governments we must act to save the climate.

Our early leaders, like Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson were creatures of the Enlightenment. Knowledge was earned, and people who had earned knowledge were treasured guests in the homes of these greats. Personal libraries were coveted. Science and reason guided their quest for truth.

It is the personal characteristics of great leaders, leaders like Grant, who unite us and empower us to be exceptional. Are these characteristics unique to America?

Long ago, I bought two small books on leadership at the military exchange. They sit on my nightstand. The books are an accumulation of ancient Chinese letters on leadership and list characteristics of successful leaders at various levels of government.  The description of the greatest leader is:

“One whose humanitarian care extends to all under his command, whose trustworthiness and justice win the allegiance of neighboring nations, who understands the signs of the sky above, the patterns of the earth below, (science?), and the affairs of humanity in between, and who regards all people as his family, is a world-class leader, one who cannot be opposed.”

We may want to ponder Mathew 7: 15-23. His advice?  If you want good leadership, elect a good tree.