Who are our leaders?

I was part of a conversation recently about William F. Buckley, Jr., and his history-making role as the father of the American political conservative movement. It was posed that there would be no Cato, no Heritage, nor any of the other think tanks or political magazines were it not for this man, who was able to bring all the different types of conservatism - and there are differing types - together, using his characteristic diplomacy, humor and genuine idealism.

A character like that does not exist for the right or left right now. The only two I think come close are (were?) Barack Obama for democrats and President Trump for Republicans. We know, though, that both are incredibly divisive characters, so whether they can claim a status as a “uniter” is debatable.

It led me to a different thought, though. Why do we default to the President as the beacon of national unity? Has American society always held its political leaders - particularly in the office of the President - as its default leaders, in that sense? I genuinely do not know. What does it say about our values that we nearly deify presidents, electing them to do much more than just uphold the Constitution, and is it a departure from the Founders’ intent? Will we ever return to a time when writers and philosophers are the great unifiers?

In any case, I think America would do well to hold all elected officials with higher levels of skepticism. I am reminded of the fact that when John Adams left office, after losing the presidency to Thomas Jefferson, he simply left by carriage early in the morning before Jefferson’s inauguration. Basically, he left the White House in the 1801 version of an Uber Pool. This is unthinkable now for many practical reasons, but also because the Presidency is its own form of celebrity. Look no further than all those that run for president, knowing they have no chance of election, but with the guarantee of a book deal at the end.

The larger question, though, is who instead should we turn to, if not the president, for unifying leadership? I have one idea, that is rather timeless and not of my own making: the saints. But I suppose forgetting the saints, and deifying politicians, is what happens when, as a whole, society moves away from considering God at all.

I do not believe that presidents are wholly without merit, by any means, but there is a reason why American do not believe in God-ordained kings. Presidents - all politicians - are just men and women, after all.

There was another element to the whole conversation, which is that, if Buckley were so passionate about ideas, and transmitting them as a key part of growing his movement, how does the movement - any movement - grow now in an age where people are not particularly interested in ideas?

I don’t buy into this entirely. I think it’s a little pessimistic about human nature. While, yes, the world seems mostly interested in headlines and Twitter takes, I think we sell ourselves short to say humans are simply no longer interested in ideas. I suppose the question is how best to transmit them. There is more competition now for our attention than ever before. Maybe that is the better question: how do keep the desire for ideas alive in the digital age.

I wonder what John Adams would have said.