Good leaders do what?

During these politically divisive times, one of the major ways people attempt to degrade Trump is to accuse him of being pathetic, if not absent, as a leader. His opponents claim he is the "worst President (leader of our nation) in history." Now, this blog is not about politics and certainly not about Trump. It's about what we can learn to recognize and to be an effective leader.

At the center of the criticism is Trump's results in controlling infections and deaths from CV-19 along with an equally critical view of his handling the economy. When looking at a single result to determine the merits of a leader, we miss the complexities in which any leader must lead. For instance, most sensible people, when not being seduced by politics, understand that aggressively shutting down social activity to halt the spread of the virus simultaneously destroys the economy. On the other hand, if commercial activity were allowed to continue as usual (and the US had a great economy going into the virus period), then the virus would likely have dire consequences on public health.

Putting various biases of Trump aside, what would a good leader do? Pick one outcome and let the other create a disaster? If so, which one?

When I was a young man, just getting started in my career, I witnessed something I will never forget. I worked at Vanity Fair (the garment company) as a systems analyst.

There was an interesting business problem Vanity Fair was trying to solve. If they dyed big batches of cloth, the dying and finishing productivity was good, but in-process inventory in sewing plant was too high. To reduce the problem with inventory in sewing, they would dye smaller batches. But then, productivity in the dye plant would suffer.

This went on and on for months and I watched. Being a math geek I pondered, "why don't they optimize the conflict instead of bouncing back and forth trying to accomplish a single objective?" I was getting my first taste of what it meant to balance two significant opposing forces. I was beginning to see what leadership was and was not.

Today I heard financial analysts interviewing business people about the Presidential debate. The mostly liberal media were trying to corner successful business people to support their claim, "Trump is a bad leader and bad for our country." Ironically, the first person they interviewed was Robert (Bob) Johnson, the founder of BTN.

BTN is the first successful TV network designed for Black Americans. Bob is black. Bob is very successful and respected by all business professionals. What do you think he said about Trump and leadership?

Basically he said that the true test of a leader comes from how he/she deals with trade-offs between two conflicting and difficult outcomes. No leader wants people to die, as they have with CV. Nor does a leader want the economy to tank and create hardship for many.

His focus on evaluating a leader is not picking one outcome and judging whether it alone should have been better or worse. He said the leadership issue should be more about how the leader addresses the trade-offs between two opposing forces. 

In other words, how a leader balances and finds the best middle ground determines a leader. In the case of Trump, Johnson knows how Trump is trying to deal with the trade-offs. It may not be perfect. No one can agree what is the right trade-off. But Trump is predictable in seeking trade-offs, and that is what counts in business.

You can agree with Johnson or not on Trump vs Biden, but his point about leadership is important. In fact, I pondered the very same thing 50 years ago and felt the same way.....

Can you be reasonable?

We look at each other and "demand" that others be reasonable. This is how we know what is true, who is right, what is fair. A conclusion is "valid" only when it passes the test of reasonableness. Whether in marriage, as parents, in business, and especially in the public policy arena, we accept what is reasonable and we reject what is not. That's what we do without much consideration of what we are doing.

Did you know that the criteria of "being reasonable" is at the core of philosophy and is one of the major areas of contention between Martin Luther, the author of the Protestant Reformation, and Thomas Acquinas, the first Catholic philosopher. 

The ability to reason was advanced by Plato and Aristotle as the main facility humans had that animals did not. Being able to experience via physical senses multiple data points in the world and inferring a moral principle from this data is innately human. Acquinas believed that by following Aristotle's model of cause and effect we can reason that God exist. Luther took exception. He believed human reasoning could not determine matters of faith. Evidence of God cannot be confirmed through physical senses.   

You may not ever think about what it means to be reasonable, but you build your life on being reasonable all the time. You demand it of others. Isn't that interesting? Yet, you may not even understand whether you or anyone else is actually being reasonable. What is reason based on? If you wish, we can explore what it means to be reasonable. You never know what you might find.

What is reason? The 1828 Webster dictionary says reason is the basis by which we reach or justify a determination or conclusion. In this sense, everyone is reasonable in that they have a way to judge or determine what they conclude. However, is everyone's reason really reasonable?  

Let's examine this question by breaking the process down to its two components: 1) the starting point and 2) the thought path or logic used to get from the starting point to the conclusion.

There is a field of study for the second component, the logical pathway to conclusion. For instance, there are accepted paths of logic, such as "if A = B and B = C, then A = C." There are aspects of the logic process called fallacies, which is drawing a conclusion that violates laws of logic. You can accept these laws or not, but most scholars of reason would agree on the ways in which logic works. Often, if a thought path adheres to the rules of logic, we would agree the conclusion is reasonable. This is what Aristotle and Acquinas basically do. They apply accepted paths of logic to observations to determine what is true.

So, why did Luther vehemently disagree with Aristotle and Acquinas. Luther pointed to the problem of the starting point. In other words, regardless how logical your path is, if you start at the wrong place, your conclusion will not be reasonable. The starting place for Aristotle and Acquinas was never at question by them. They assumed every human has the same built in core assumptions that make them human. This is what psychology and philosophy has spent thousands of years studying.

Luther claimed that this natural human assumption starting point for reason is flawed. This issue of a flawed starting point is found in the doctrine of Total Depravity of man that came with the fall (Adam and Eve's misstep). Luther believed that humans cannot reason things of God because their logic starts from a place that leads them away from God. Luther believed that revelation not reason is the way man concludes the ways of God. Jesus said that he reveals truth, implying man does not find it on their own from observing the world.

Going back to the meaning of reason, which is simply a pathway to reach a conclusion, I agree with Luther's reason that humans cannot be reasonable. They can be logical but they have a flawed starting point. 

However, I have reasoned that humans can be reasonable if the process of thought and emotion follows basic principles of logic applied to an unflawed starting point. My reasoning finds that the starting point is what Luther calls faith. Humans have been given the ability to think and feel about the revealed faith they have received. This is the work of the transformed mind. It seems this is what the historical debate between faith and reason is missing. 

Therefore, I encourage you to refrain from trusting reason from the wrong starting point, but also do not reject the idea of reason when it is logic applied to the right starting point. 

We claim our judgments are reasonable. We demand that others be reasonable, or we reject their judgments. Being reasonable is not so simple, maybe even impossible for some. Yet, I find it reasonable to ponder, "can you be reasonable?"

" he's fearless in his mother's arms"

                                

I was visiting my brother's family at the beach this week. There was a nice sandbar that allowed us to safely take the young children further out into the waves. As the kids got used to the waves "crashing" upon their bodies, they became more and more excited and daring.

The youngest of the 3 is a boy. Of course, he gets more and more aggressive and  daring as he gains confidence. Suddenly out of nowhere, a larger than normal wave comes and knocks him off his feet. He becomes confused, disoriented, and not so daring. He reaches for his mother. She picks him up. He begins to calm down. Once composed and seeing what was happening, he says, "this is really fun."

His wise mom simply says, "he's fearless in his mother's arms." 

I immediately pondered, as I often do, what a great picture of our life in Christ. Why does He repeatedly say, "fear not"? Notice what He does not say. He does not tell us to "be courageous! Be strong although you are afraid." He says "fear not." This is a state of being without fear. This is being fearless.

Like my young grand nephew, his mom didn't say, "no be courageous, stay on your own and fight through this. Be a big boy." She picked him up into her arms, and he became FEARLESS.

That's the Gospel. That is life in the Kingdom. That is "wow worthy". That is worth pondering