Leadership in a Time of Division
Terry H. Schwadron
Sept. 30, 2024
From different parts of the world, we got lessons this weekend in separating those who think solutions are possible only if in total control and those who see that complicated divisions require rethinking.
Maybe the coincident news events should prompt us to consider exactly what kind of leadership we want in our immediate communities and in our nations. For sure, the number and nature of these events suggest that events are more in control than specific leaders, and that answers to complex questions don’t just appear.
In the Middle East, the escalating military showdown between Israel and Hezbollah that is opening wider and more serious conflict than in Gaza or the West Bank alone, has resulted in the bombing death of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Clearly the resulting turmoil inside a Lebanon that allows Hezbollah to operate freely and from Iran, which vows all-out war again against Israel is creating an instability that threatens to explore yet more.
Yet, the salient statements were from Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who, under pressure from his right-wing coalition partners, told the UN General Assembly on Friday that he was again rejecting any notion of ceasefires and peace plans against Hamas or Hezbollah despite indications to U.S. officials that he would finally back them. Once Nasrallah was killed a day later, the Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was spouting his death-to-Israel message anew. Together, the messages were about insistence on being right through might, with Reason and compromise nowhere in sight.
Meanwhile, hundreds, even thousands, died the conflicts this week and millions were evicted from homes and daily life in the name of slogans of hate. Iran and Lebanon are not under Israeli occupation but Hezbollah and Iranian proxies are raining missiles on northern Israel; Israel acts as if it is in a never-ending reprisal mode.
Let’s just agree that, once again, that anything resembling reason, humanitarian concern, practical peace-making solution was proving quickly and certainly to be beyond the power of the main adversaries in the region and well beyond the control of the UN or other intermediaries.
Elections in Division
Meanwhile, In Arizona and other battleground states, our own electoral politics were playing out amid ever-present polling that shows an incredibly tight election emerging. That’s not news, despite the insistence of pundits to overvalue every would-be measure of the horse-race results.
What was interesting was that Democrat Kamala Harris finally and belatedly got herself to the border in Arizona, and apart from the details, offered up yet another position that showed she is moving intentionally towards a view of leadership in a time of significant political division.
In formal remarks and in unscripted meetings with border officials, Harris took on a more aggressive stance towards border issues than has Joe Biden. While short of Donald Trump claims of shutting the border altogether, she offered a plan that would suspend asylum protections when border crossings tripped more than 1,500 per day rather than the 5,000 crossings limit that Biden had proposed. The bill that would have done this was killed in Congress when Trump exhorted even Republicans who had written it to block its passage.
Politically, it is unlikely that anything Harris said — or frankly, will say — will satisfy those voters who back Trump’s all-immigration-is-bad approach. But the significance was recognition that for Harris to succeed — as candidate or president — she is talking about the necessity to alter her policies towards some sense of compromise.
In that sense, it was the exact opposite of what we are seeing in the Middle East.
We also so Trump meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky who was in New York for the UN meeting, though it was unclear how open Trump was to hear about any need to back Ukraine in its defense against a Russian invasion. Instead, Trump favors deals and transactions just to stop U.S. financial and care considerations for Ukraine, even at the cost of capitulation to Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Some see leadership only in concrete positions from points of dominance, others recognize that leadership is about persuasion. Whether for political convenience alone or for patching over recognized division, the degree of movement is just as notable.
The question for us, as always, is whether we measure “strength” among leaders by their promises to demolish enemies or by their ability to read that complex problems require rethinking and diplomatic, layered resolution.
##