Few traitors are more famous than Marcus Brutus of Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar. Brutus is a close, personal friend of Caesar - the leader of the Roman Empire. Yet, despite their relationship, Brutus joins a group of conspiring assassins and puts a knife in Caesar’s back. As Caesar lies dying, he looks up at his friend and gasps, “Et tu, Brute?” - or roughly translated, “you also, Brutus?”
What compelled Brutus to commit this horrifying act of betrayal? Was it ambition, envy, or a concealed hatred for his friend? Most who read Shakespeare agree that Brutus’ actions weren’t driven by any of these nefarious motives - rather, his actions were rooted in principle. Brutus was persuaded by the other assassins that Caesar was planning to extend his power by abolishing the republic and establishing a monarchy, thus making himself a king. Brutus loved his friend, but he loved freedom and self-rule even more. Ultimately, Brutus’ loyalty to the ideal of a republic drove him to murder and betrayal.
As is common with many of Shakespeare’s plays, Julius Caesar teaches us an important lesson; people aren’t loyal to people - they’re loyal to ideals and principles. If an individual pledges allegiance to a person or group, it is because that person or group embodies principles to which that individual subscribes. When these principles are abandoned or forsaken, loyalty disintegrates. Brutus’ loyalty and friendship to Caesar dissolved when Brutus was led to believe that Caesar was turning his back on principles which Brutus held dear.
Of all the follies which lead to the downfall of promising leaders, this is near the top of list: failure to understand the origin of the loyalty expressed by the people who follow them. Many leaders falsely believe it is their charisma, or other personal attributes which bind their people to them; such a leader will be startled and offended when seemingly innocuous decisions cause those people to start leaving en masse. What this leader doesn’t understand is that the betrayal of his/her people was probably preceded by his/her own betrayal of important principles.
The founders of our nation understood the primacy of principles in securing the loyalty of the people to their government. Just as important as the decision to forge our government in the pattern of democracies and republics of the past, was the decision to build our nation upon the rule of law. More than the will of people, or the will of its leaders, our country would be subject to self-evident principles; despite the tremendous influence wielded by senators, judges and even presidents, the most powerful entity in the United States would be the Constitution.
Similarly, the wisest leaders are willing to largely forfeit their authority to “the rule of law”, or a clearly defined code. Practically speaking, this means they will avoid doing certain things that they technically have the authority to do. The authority of these leaders may appear hollow at first glance - after all, doesn’t power mean that a person can act as he/she sees fit? Nevertheless, it is only this type of restrained, limited and confined authority which has any real permanence.
It’s interesting to stop and take a closer look at what we define as power or authority. For most leaders, their power - or ability to exercise influence according to their own ideas and desires - is largely derived from the loyalty of the people they lead. Loyalty in turn generally results from a sense of consistency that people observe in the principles and ideals to which their leader subscribes. Such consistency leads to expectations; subordinates anticipate that a leader will react to a given situation in a manner consistent with these principles. If the leader abandons theses principles, the people will begin to abandon the leader. Thus, leaders can only retain authority by exercising restraint in their use of power.
Leaders must actively seek to understand the common ideals or principles responsible for loyalty of their subordinates. Such understanding isn’t merely a component of effective leadership - it can be vital to a leader’s survival! Granted, most leaders won’t face the same life-and-death dilemma of Julius Caesar; nevertheless, if they are to maintain their authority then loyalty must be cultivated and jealously preserved. After all, you can only call yourself a leader when loyal people are willing to follow you.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
May 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
This article spells out clearly why GWB is not a real leader. As a leader, the will of the people should be what you listen for, not the will of the powerful and connected. We now have a chance to move away from that with either HRC or BHO. We need leadership, not a confused dictator/puppet(see puppetmaster Dick Cheney).
May 29th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Your article is dead on point! Brutus probably did more by killing Caesar than McClellan did by exposing the deception of the Bush administartion.
As many Americans have concluded, we were mislead and fear was replaced with principle……………
Garry
May 29th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Upon careful reading, I find that this article does not mention GWB or HRC or BHO. This article makes an example of Brutus as a desperate and failed leader because he ultimately didn’t trust in the principles and strength of a republic… the people he professed to love and lead. Instead he turned to lying, subterfuge and murder, which ultimately resulted in the loss and destruction of whatever noble principles Rome’s failed leaders purported to save and protect.
In point of fact, every leader fails or appears to fail our expectations and becomes infected with a case of “Brutitus,” to one degree or another. Nixon met some of our expectations and failed miserably in other ways. JFK inspired a nation and a generation to service, but failed terribly at the Vienna Summit where Khrushchev for good reasons took him to be weak, which very nearly got us all killed during the Cuban missile crisis.
Clinton made some marvelous progress and had the good sense to ignore those who would have destroyed the ongoing benefits of the achievements of previous administrations. And yet, he failed in so many other personal and professional ways. GWB is by most evidence a moral and conscientious man who in dealing with crises has not been served well by those in his administration, but the ultimate responsibility for failures must rest with him.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners who developed a conscience once having publicly and militarily made know their beliefs in the “inalienable rights” of the individual. Franklin as a womanizer made Clinton look like a school boy dealing with raging hormones. Lincoln during his terms was one of the most vilified Presidents ever.
History has proven time and time again that the most productive national environment exists when the majority leads with courage and respect for their followers and the minority, and the minority adopts a resolute, but respectful course and discourse to protect and preserve the one true necessity… our liberty.
Yes… we need leadership… always… and it is us as American citizens who must responsibly and faithfully identify those of reasonable courage, conscience and ability to do so. However, when the selection has been made, it is every citizen’s first responsibility to assume their mantle of the majority or the loyal opposition. Disagreement tempered with respect is productive. Name calling has no place in human discourse because to disrespect another is to disrespect ourselves.
May I recommend a more cooperative position… “He is a blankety-blank, but he is my blankety-blank.” We have to seek common ground… to give respect and acknowledge good deeds and accomplishments as well as making our objections know. We should focus on the fact that every 2, 4 and 6 years we get the chance to throw the “blankety-blanks” out! With all due respect, it is this right of the American citizenry that has made “confused dictators, puppets and puppetmasters” extinct in America.