Law and Order…?

As we head into the final week of the 2020 Presidential race, I expect to hear ongoing references to the need for “law and order.” This is unlikely to be a peaceful process, either in the week to come or those immediately following. “Law and Order,” as defined by the current President, is not the answer. Mutual Respect is.

Each of us has had experiences with true leaders, whether they be in a classroom, captain or coach of a team, a school administrator, CEO of a corporation or a non-profit institution, or locally or nationally elected officials. They have more in common with each other than they have differences, regardless of their political party affiliation, religion, race, or even age. The  most significant trait and practice that effective leaders have in common is this: Respect. Respect for others and respect for themselves. They operate from a position of trust. That is their strength – not weapons or derision or caste or exclusion.  

True leaders do not have “discipline” or management problems. They do not fire or discredit anyone who disagrees with them. Law and order are not demands that are inflicted on others by force or the power of weapons. Law and order are, in fact, misnomers for what our current President claims he wants. If that were true, he would abide by the laws: He would wear a mask. He would not ask his “base” to congregate in huge numbers so that he could deride his opponents. He, as the theoretical leader of this country, would be the firstto follow the recommendations of his appointed advisors and to follow the law. As the coronavirus surges in our country, President Trump not only ignores the laws established in various areas, he blatantly encourages others to do the same. Meanwhile, Peaceful Black Lives Matter gatherings, according to Trump, are unlawful and are met with armed resistance.

Should anyone be interested in Trump’s relationship with the law, simply Google that topic. I was particularly struck by comments written by author, former federal prosecutor, and self-avowed “middle-of-the-road Republican,” James D. Zirin. Not somebody out to “get” the President because he is of a different political party, which is generally Trump’s go-to accusation. In his book, Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits, published in 2019, Mr. Zirin notes, “Trump saw litigation as being only about winning. He sued at the drop of a hat. He sued for sport; he sued to achieve control; and he sued to make a point. He sued as a means of destroying or silencing those who crossed him. He became a plaintiff in chief.”  

As observed in an article written by Robin Lindley in the April 20, 2020 issue of the ABA Journal, “Zirin argues that Trump has shown a chronic scorn for the law. ‘All this aberrant behavior would be problematic in a businessman,’ he writes. ‘But the implications of such conduct in a man who is the president of the United States are nothing less than terrifying.’”

Think back to an organization in which you felt safe, in which you felt comfortable with whomever was in charge. What, exactly, did “in charge” mean? If you truly felt comfortable and safe, quite likely it was because you understood expectations and parameters. Equally important, you felt heard and respected. You had a voice. It was no louder or softer than that of anyone else in the organization. You knew what to expect, knew what expected of you. You might have elected to be a very active participant or a more subdued one.  You had that freedom. Nobody was above the law. Nobody. It wasn’t about power. It was about respect.