April 26, 2024

 Madam President

 Let’s agree that physical power rules when it comes to politics.  Then, consider that groups are more powerful than individuals; and that groups are defined by their leaders.  With leaders in place, we have top-down, authoritarian governance.  Individuals are subordinate to the group hierarchy.  Within this context, we can look at the connection between leadership and gender, and distinguish between authoritarian and interactive approaches.   

Authoritarian Leadership 

Male Authoritarian Leadership.  This is the historically traditional model.  In American history the names that come to mind include George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.  Some well-known foreign male leaders include Germany’s Adolph Hitler, Russia’s Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini.           

Female Authoritarian Leadership.  When females are at the administrative helm, their method of operations can be seen as similar to when males hold the position.  For some, U.K. Queen Victoria (1837-1901) stands out.   Even as a figure-head in a constitutional monarchy, she had significant influence on government policy during a time of empire building.  From 1762-1796, the ambitious Russian Catherine II (The Great) was known for expanding her empire in size and cultural standing—perhaps at the expense of dethroning her husband Peter III, exploiting the serfs, and confiscating church land.  In my generation, U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) was celebrated as the first European prime minister.  A little later, Europeans were focused on Germany’s first woman Chancellor, Angela Merkel (2005-2021), considered by some to have been the most powerful woman in the world.  Queen Elizabeth II (1952-2022) was U.K.’s longest reigning British Monarch and had meetings with five popes and 14 U.S. presidents.  On the world scene, some names that come to mind include Indira Gandhi, India’s first woman prime minister (1966-1977 and 1980 until assassinated in 1984); Golda Meir, Israel’s first female prime minister (1969-1974).  And, then there was the charismatic and ruthless Egyptian Queen Cleopatra VII (51-30 BCE), who is perhaps best known by the Hollywood version of her rule

Male-Female Authoritarian Leadership.  In 1980, Ronald Reagan appointed Jean Kirkpatrick to serve as U.S. representative to the United Nations, the first American woman to hold that position.  In 2008, John McCain chose the minimally qualified Sarah Palin as his running mate.  They lost to Barack Obama who had selected Joe Biden as his running mate.  In 2020, Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris as his Vice President, the first woman and first black to hold the office.    

An Early Application of Interactive Leadership 

In 1787, the original U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) provided for the President and Vice President to be the top vote getters, respectively.  This could be seen as a great idea if they could get along interactively, and give more citizens representation at the highest level of government.   Well, two males could not work interactively, and in 1804 the XII Amendment to the Constitution provided that a presidential candidate would have a running mate who would become Vice President, and serve the  successful presidential candidate.    

And so, the efficiency of authoritarian governance was re-introduced.  As the population grew, money increasingly became necessary, and power gravitated to parties with fund-raising capabilities.  Eventually, people voted for parties not individuals.  Similarly, party-power took control over Congress and the Supreme Court.  Party-power progressively disenfranchised individuals.  Whatever the group, party-power could take control by establishing compulsory unions for labor, schools, churches, and local governments.  Individuals began to see themselves having either a group-identity or no identity at all.

A Unique Opportunity to Reconsider the Interactional Model

With the U.S. and its institutions at risk of succumbing to chaos, this may be a good time for citizens to re-think our approach to governance.  Let’s look at the role of gender in politics.    

To begin, consider that men and women are not only different, but that women differ with respect to their rational approaches to problem solving.  Each is inclined toward a different mind-set.  Additionally, consider that women are not particularly effective at emulating a male’s mind-set, and men are not particularly effective at emulating a woman’s mind-set.  Said another way, men are at their most effective when interacting with a woman; and conversely, women are most effective when interacting with a man.  

While two men or two women working together may require one to be the boss, consider that a man and a woman working as a team could effectively bring about the most favorable results.  Each could contribute a somewhat different perspective when seeking to resolve problems.    

Briefly stated, females are inclined to be all-inclusive, unconditionally accepting, flexible, quick to over-look minor inconsistencies, efficient at maintaining an already existing system, and prefer stability as in forever agreements.  

Males can be seen as being conditional, making and maintaining the integrity of contracts as in commitments to the “rule of law.”  You can hear them say “I am a man of my word.”  They can at times seem almost obsessive in their support for the “letter of the law,” tradition, and ritual.  They are sometimes labeled as “detail persons.”  They love to consider every possible interpretation when writing laws.  They work well in a military environment.  As for finance, they will strive to see that expenses are covered by income—with a little set aside in reserve.   Men are attracted to problem solving.  When solved, they would prefer to move on to the next challenge.  

Combined, a male and female could work interactively by bringing complementary skills to the table.  As with the bee and flower, neither would be dominant over the other.  Each would interact to bring about a better result than could be achieved by either alone, or where one is subordinate to the other.    

How it would look

When interactively combined, the “whole” can be seen as greater than the “sum of the parts” as in the concept of Yin-Yang.  Consider the following chart: 

 We can see examples of interaction throughout nature.  Personally, I find watching that bee-flower interaction awesome!  Interaction is the supreme law of nature.  For humans, things are always experienced as interactions with other things.  And again, interaction can be seen as the core concept of “relative” thinking.  There are no absolutes in human nature.  “You can’t jump out of your skin to see how things look out there.”

Here is my best physical metaphor describing interaction:  It is the relationship between the heart and brain.  The heart will feed every cell of the body (female); the brain will set up an elaborate system of anti-bodies (male) to reject cells that lack integrity with the basic functioning of the body.

Returning to our focus on politics:  If a male and female could find a way to interact as President and Vice President, they could serve as a governance model for every family in America.  The whole world could see “what works” and “what does not work.”  

Regarding our up-coming election, Joe Biden can be seen as using his brain as he destroys the heart.  Donald Trump can be seen as using his heart as he destroys the brain.  Said another way, Biden will rationally lead us along a path to self-destruction; Trump will emotionally lead us along a path to self-destruction.   

As for a male-female pairing, which would make the best President?  We can ask which would be best suited to work directly with the public, while having an inclination to seek out and promote the most inclusive course of action.  As for Vice President, which would be best suited to guide the formulations of specific legal procedures to reflect the will of the citizenry, balance the budget, and work in the Senate with a long term perspective—a detail person?  Sure, a female President and a male Vice President can be seen as the best combination.        

Seeds Already Planted

First, we take note that the United States Bill of Rights provides the richest soil for individual and national prosperity.  It places principles over power—individual freedom over authoritarianism.     

Second, there is already an “undeclared” voting group.  They can be seen as rejecting party subordination, and choosing to vote for individuals reflecting their personal preferences.  They make up about 30% of the voters, or roughly about the same as either of the two major parties.    

Third, there could be a focus on increasing the control in the House of Representatives with people who support the Bill of Rights as a priority—namely, that’s a matter of supporting policies maximizing individual freedom.  House members having only a two-year tenure make this legislative branch closest and most responsive to the citizenry.  As for our next president, we could retreat to the protection of our system of checks-and-balances.  That is, we could try to keep any single party from gaining control over all three branches of government.

We may be saying “Madam President” in about 4½ years.        

Expecting the next posting in about 10 days⃰  with the topic: “What’s God got to do with it?”

[  ⃰ At 86, my body can complain at any time and take a few days to settle down.]