Given events of the week, I've been re-reading
Ghosts of the Titanic by Charles Pellegrino. It's a fairly decent book on the subject, especially if you're a geeky type (like me) who likes to understand the engineering aspects of how disasters happen. (I suspect that's because the human aspects are totally incomprehensible to me.) But he also gets into issues of leadership.
Stanley Resor, who was secretary of the army under Nixon:
"We get inadequate leaders because the people in leadership are people who desperately want, and ruthlessly compete, for those positions. So the guys at the top are usually just good competitors."
[snip]
" . . . when havoc strikes, it is the ones who are officially in charge who often freeze or come unhinged . . . That's when the true leaders, who might not be near the top because they have the good sense to avoid the competitive, back-stabbing people, rise to the occasion and assume the role of hard, risky leadership that no one else, in time of crisis, really wants."
I'd say I'm wondering where the leaders are rising to this occasion, but we've seen it in a thousand little ways: with everyone here who're just itching to head to New Orleans and do something, anything, in the face of the official inaction; with the Coast Guard who have worked tirelessly and saved thousands in the first couple days; with the bloggers who have desperately tried to get the word out, with [insert your favorite hero here]. But I'm afraid that there will be only the small leaders, because no one anywhere in a position to provide larger leadership is willing to do it.
Which leads perfectly into a vital observation that Pellegrino made after quoting Resor:
Perhaps the most important question facing our civilization over the next forty years is not how inadequate leaders become inadequate leaders, but what characteristics of human nature cause us to so consistently choose the most inadequate mong us and elevate them to the positions where they can inflict the greatest harm. [emphasis added]
I can't begin to fathom an answer to that, beyond Stanley Milgram's famous experiments that show that nearly 2/3 of people generally will follow anyone in authority. And many of those authorities will, by definition, be those ruthless competitors.
Finally, Pellegrino quotes Titanic explorer George Tulloch, who has some insight into partially answering that question, and some excellent advice:
"That's when havoc strikes: when people are unwilling to question authority, to take the difficult path and instead they follow their leaders, even when it feels wrong . . . Be willing to take the hard road. That's the lesson I want children to bring home from the Titanic. Not that God can kill you with an iceberg if you cross the ocean. What they should be learning is that we must never follow people into anything we believe may lead to evil. [emphasis added]
For myself, all I can say is that, if a true leader did suddenly appear on the scene, I would probably fix him/her with a cold eye and doubt, utterly. Not that I had much before, but this government has totally destroyed any faith I may ever have had in any leader, ever. I wish someone could restore it.