When Trust is Gone, the Ability to Lead is Gone

And, Who Will Fill the Leadership Vacuum?

By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources

September 24, 1998

The great debate on television shows lately has discussed whether or not Bill Clinton has lost his "moral authority" to lead. They emphasize over and over that Bill Clinton’s "sex life" is private and has nothing to do with his ability to lead. This is often said in the same breath as "He’s gotten a lot accomplished - the economy is strong, people are employed."

For the life of me I can’t understand how anyone who was alive in America in the last four years can make a statement like that. Somehow the media have convinced Americans, who live in a free country and who elect the people that lead them, that President Clinton, all by himself, has somehow been responsible for the balanced budget, the (at least until now) humming economy, Welfare Reform, millions of new jobs.

Yet, Bill Clinton vetoed the bills he is now taking credit for and probably would never have signed them had it not been for the fact that Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich worked with the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats," conservative Democrats who had been mostly ignored by the Democratic Party, and developed bills that accomplished all the goals set forth in the Contract with America, that conservative Democrats voted for. The "Contract" included balancing the budget, welfare reform, a tax credit for families with children, etc.

Col. Hank Hackworth observes elsewhere on this website that "In Vietnam, soldiers eventually lost trust in their leadership. Many battalion, brigade and division commanders were self-serving incompetents who used the war to win medals, punch career tickets and get out of the heat unburned. Nor did anyone in that bloody swamp trust those in charge in Saigon, the Pentagon or the White House. Vietnam was the first war we ever lost."

What happens when a nation loses trust in its leadership? In nation after nation we have been watching what happens. In the tiny mountain nation of Lesotho, which is surrounded by South Africa, a nation lost trust in its leadership and is literally destroying the capital city of Maseru today. In Yugoslavia, Indonesia and Somalia, nations lost trust in their leadership, and civil war broke out.

As Col. Hackworth points out, when soldiers no longer trust their leaders, they no longer win wars. Why? Because trust in one’s leader is a needed prerequisite to fighting valiantly. Trust is not just believing that the leader makes good decisions. Trust is a matter of the heart. For example, trusting God and believing in God are not at all the same. In religion, trust is confidence and reliance on the creative power in the universe to guide the course of events in wisdom and goodness. As Obert C. Tanner put it in "Christ’s Ideals for Living", "One can believe in God, as Voltaire confessed his faith, "We salute," he said, "but we do not speak."

Trust in God is expressed in the 23rd Psalm, "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want."

What we are seeing in America today is a growing lack of trust in Bill Clinton. His miscalculation August 17th in thinking he could admit he had "looked us in the eye …and lied" was monumental.

James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, was quoted by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Telegraph, as "Dismissing Bill Clinton as a 'tactician,' he said the foreign policy of the administration was driven by opinion polls, short-term PR calculations and the spin-cycle rhythm of an election campaign." This clearly shows a lack of trust in the leadership abilities of Bill Clinton which acts to embolden enemies who know a discredited leader cannot lead.

"Hostile states such as Iraq were likely to ‘discount the United States heavily’ as a force in the world, says James Woolsey.

Trust that the national leader will do what needs to be done for the good of the country, and will do it in a timely manner, country after country has found, is necessary to keep the country from drifting. And, there is no doubt today that the American people do not trust Bill Clinton.

For example, when he bombed the Sudan and Afghanistan a few short weeks ago, in response to the bombing of two US Embassies, the immediate question, which was asked at a White House Press Conference, "Is the a ‘Wag the Dog’ response to the Monica Lewinsky problem?" In literally minutes the idea began to take hold in the press rooms and among ordinary people talking among themselves.

The talk was nipped in the bud, not by Clinton and not by leaders in the Democratic Party, Al Gore or Dick Gephardt, but by Republican leader Newt Gingrich stepping into the trust breach and announcing that, regardless of our arguments among ourselves, this was NOT a wag the dog incident and, in fact, it should have been done earlier when terrorist attacks had killed Americans.

What was remarkable, and not noted by any news outlet that I frequent, no one seemed to even notice that the "Wag the Dog" talk instantly died down, Republicans who had already spoken on the issue, voicing doubts, apologized and followed the lead of Newt Gingrich.

Last week, Newt Gingrich established new rules which prevent members of the House from talking negatively about Bill Clinton. While many felt that the newly adopted rules were extreme, it has prevented the House from deteriorating in to a cat-and-dog fight over Bill Clinton.

Also, in keeping with one of the Contract with America goals - opening up the House of Representatives to the public - the House voted to release the materials sent to it by Kenneth Starr’s office. For the first time, the public is not dependent on the Washington Press Corps for its opinion in the matter. The public has the same evidence to weigh as Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. And, there’s more to come - not just the 2800 pages that will be available this week, but also evidence on Filegate, Campaign Finance and Travelgate appears on the horizon. This, of course, is why the Democrats are trying desperately to cast Newt Gingrich in a bad light.

Remember the "leaks" that were trying to sell the notion that the airing of Clinton’s videotaped Grand Jury testimony would "backfire" on the Republican Congress? The theory went that people would be so upset over how the President was treated by Kenneth Starr and his lawyers, that there would be a "backlash" against Republicans. And, the Gallup poll asked the question based on that scenario.

Now thinking more generally about the current situation involving Clinton, Lewinsky and the Starr investigation, who do you blame more for the fact that things have gotten to the point they have -- [ROTATE Bill Clinton, Ken Starr, the Republicans in Congress]?

It appears that one of the things that the public has learned since Bill Clinton’s August 17th testimony is that he cannot be trusted to lead. Furthermore, I think that they are beginning to comprehend that he doesn’t just lie to and about women. He has been lying about Newt Gingrich and the Republicans, too. It looks like the leadership vacuum created by Clinton's antics is beginning to be filled by no other than Newt Gingrich.

To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com