Leaders
and Officers
by
David Dieteman
The
inevitable proposal by President Bush to expand Homeland Security
into a permanent federal bureaucracy highlights a crucial distinction
in politics, namely, the distinction between leaders and officers.
What
does it mean to be a leader? And what does it mean to be an officer?
For
starters, it seems that many Americans have never bothered to consider
the essence of these concepts. Worse, it would appear that many
Americans cannot distinguish between the concepts.
First,
following Webster’s (although the Oxford English Dictionary is to
be preferred), we may define a "leader" as "a person
who by force of example, talents or qualities of leadership plays
a directing role, wields commanding influence, or has a following
in any sphere of activity or thought."
Beethoven
and Mozart were leaders in the field of musical composition.
Second,
and in contrast, an "officer" is "one charged with
a duty" or "one who is appointed or elected to serve in
a position of trust, authority or command, especially as specifically
provided for by law."
Despite
the similarity in popular, unreflective thought, not all officers
are, or should be, leaders. To illustrate this distinction, consider
the rather obvious example of many of the politicians you see on
TV. Many are about as inspiring as a bowl of moldy tangerines (to
borrow a line from the film UHF).
Similarly, many politicians cannot be reasonably said to have a
following in any sphere of "thought," except perhaps as
regards their lack thereof.
On
the other hand, Bill Clinton might be said to have a following in
a "sphere of activity," but the fields of philandering
and perjury, to be fair, pre-date his ambitious tenure in the Oval
Office.
Consider
also the case of corporate structure. In a corporation, the officers
are given particular duties. These duties are delegated by the Articles
of Incorporation, or the By-Laws. The president, for example, is
assigned to preside over meetings, hence his title: president. Someone
who presides.
A
corporate Secretary typically keeps minutes of meetings and sends
out notices. The corporate Treasurer typically has financial duties.
You get the idea.
Suppose,
however, that in a corporation, the Secretary wanted more power.
In short, he was too wise, talented, or "great," to be
bound by the duties given to him by the Articles of Incorporation.
Suppose that man charged with sending out notices of shareholder
meetings decided to "take action" and move Ford Motor
Company from the production of automobiles into the production of
X-rated films with automotive themes. He would very likely be removed
from his job.
The
job description is the job description, and it is not for the Secretary
to usurp the powers of the corporation’s President, board of directors,
or managers. Where business and shareholder derivative suits are
concerned, Americans seem to understand the idea of an "officer"
and the idea of limited power.
Where
politicians are concerned, however, Americans are largely in favor
of the "great man" view of politics. In short, if the
dictator is smiling and mild, Americans will sign their liberties
away like F.D.R. selling Poland to the Soviets.
President
Bush has proposed that the Department of Homeland Security be created
in order for crack government operatives – who admittedly failed
to prevent the tragedy of September 11 – to fail to protect American
lives and property in more expensive and colossal ways.
Where
in the constitution, one wonders, is the president of the United
States of Ameirca provided with so many of the powers popularly
associated with that office?
Hint:
the powers actually delegated to the chief executive officer of
the federal constitution of 1789 hardly resemble the powers which
have been arrogated by president upon president.
And
yet Americans have acquiesced. There is more money to be made in
going along with federal power grabs. There seem to be no adverse
consequences.
Another,
and final, hint: the consequences of the loss of liberty are not
immediately felt. To paraphrase David Hume, liberty is rarely lost
all at once.
To
quote Edmund Burke, "The people never give up their liberties
but under some delusion." It is high time for Americans to
turn away from the delusion that is the "great leader"
view of the presidency. History is cluttered with examples of failed
societies who placed their trust in "great leaders" rather
than in liberty under the law.
There
is no better time than the present for Americans to reassert the
constitutional delegation of powers – limited powers – to federal
officers.
June
14, 2002
Mr.
Dieteman [send him mail] is
an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy
at The Catholic University of America.
©
2002 David Dieteman
David
Dieteman Archives
|