Among the many lessons the American citizenry should have learned from the daily dishonorable behavior of former President Donald Trump is that leadership that lacks invited pushback, contrary ideas, and different viewpoints is doomed to move toward totalitarian power-mongering, leadership devoid of character, blatant disregard for—and therefore the abuse of—truth, and the repression or spiteful retribution of anyone not falling in line beside the other minions and parrots. The problem is—a democracy thrives on a multiplicity of views, beliefs, and opinions, and, ideally, the sharing of power. But these need to be rooted in and assured by enacted integrity, dignity, responsibility, decency, and mutual respect since its aim is unity with diversity or diversity in unity. And from a perspective of faith, always actions and decisions with an eye to the most vulnerable among us—those in the bible referred to as “the poor and oppressed.”

History shows us the first ones to go in a totalitarian regime are the artists: poets, painters, composers, playwrights, actors of street theaters, novelists. Their forte is creativity which often involves offering an alternative view and voice to the status quo. They also are disturbers of a complacent peace that favors and serves those with privilege and power. Then they come for journalists. Good journalists swear no allegiance to a political party but abide by “a code of ethics centering on public trust, truthfulness, fairness, integrity, independence, and accountability.” Then they come for religious leaders who should be first on the list—and the more prophetic of them are—but often religious leaders are susceptible to being co-opted by the dominant culture. Whether our angle is history from above or history from below, the differential is always power. Make what you will of what is going on in our country and what went on on January 6, 2021, but when you pull the bodies from the mosh pit, I guarantee you the two wrestling at the bottom of the pile are in a struggle for power. What is at stake is the abuse of power by a select few for a select group versus the responsible use of power for what is best for the most, with special attention to the most vulnerable.

Ask anyone working in local government or the corporate world or higher education or ecclesial institutions or professional sports all the way down to faculty and staff of elementary, junior high, and high schools and youth organizations how secure the top dog is with welcoming input from his or her staff (not opponents or competitors) that is contrarian, divergent, or alternative. Successful leaders will tell you, the willingness to encourage input from all perspectives, the ability to listen respectfully, and to give serious consideration to each viewpoint is a sign of a mature, secure, capable, and good leader. It’s also an element of a healthy work environment, institution, organization, family, and yes, government.

Of the many transgressions of Donald Trump and the fateful precedents of his term in office was the fatal refusal to tolerate, let alone welcome, any opposing view from his own staff. It’s perhaps the most common theme spoken and written about by his appointees who resigned or remained. I’m not even thinking about the views from the opposing political party—the Democrats— but rather the diversity of opinion from within his own administration. This should come as no surprise. Those in the know knew his M.O. In reality, the Trump Organization has always been an All in the Family affair. It is a family fiefdom and Donald is the feudal lord (even as he sat in the Oval Office). To the great detriment of the United States, democracy, and the constitution, he thought he could govern the country in the same way he ran his company.

Two facts bear this out, first, no administration in the history of the United States has ever had so many political appointees of consequential positions either resign or be dismissed. The single greatest underlying factor seems to be not that they weren’t effectively doing their respective jobs but that they weren’t falling in line and being 100% in agreement, supportive, or compliantly goose-stepping soldiers. So alarming and portentous would a second Trump presidency be, according to some Republicans who worked for him and witnessed up close and personal the President’s daily behavior and operations, that they are forming an organization to reveal to other Republicans, including Trump supporters, just how duplicitous and dangerous he is.

In addition, many people who served in the Trump administration when asked why they stayed answered in one way or another that they feared if they left the then President would hire someone who would be little more than a vertical bobblehead giving the President carte blanche to do what he wanted whether illegal, unconstitutional, or unethical. Second, unlike any other modern President, Donald Trump went through a four-year term and—but for perhaps two exceptions—for all intents and purposes never made himself available to a substantive or tough interview. He only faced people (I can’t use the word interviewers with any real seriousness) who would serve up questions the size of softballs and the weight of one of Mike Lindell’s pillows. This is the President of the United States. High school teachers, Scout leaders, youth coaches are given more scrutiny and asked more serious questions than Donald Trump ever allowed. That we are talking about the United States and not Russian, China, Iraq or Iran is cause for great concern for any and all citizens of this country.

As I see it, the greatest gift Mr. Trump gave to the American people was to expose how vulnerable our democracy is to a President who is looking for and willing to take advantage of every loophole within the Presidency to serve his own private purposes no matter how deviant, indecent, or unlawful the means. He exposed just how much the power, responsibility, administration, action, and behavior of the President has been based on the honor system because it was always assumed that someone who rose to that level of leadership would be a person of integrity, honor, and genuine service to others, especially the needy. But what if the President is intrinsically dishonorable, unethical, a pathological liar, and a dangerous narcissist (Just get your hands on the 5th edition of the DSM-V: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)? The character, soul, ideals, health, and well-being of our country are dependent upon public servants exhibiting these same qualities.

Donald Trump was a quick study long ago: he loved his ego stroked, he loved flattery, he loved compliments and lapdogs and verbally lacerated, punished, or fired anyone who failed or refused either to mimic him or to bow down and pay homage to him. And anyone—literally anyone from Kim Jong il to Putin to Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud—who flattered him and who wielded a lot of power resided within his good graces. The best example of this is perhaps the former President saying on a globally covered news conference that he trusted the word of the president of Russia more than his own government’s justice department, intelligence agency, and their specialists.

The question of the necessity of leadership marked by integrity, honesty, character or soul, is not an option for America unless we want to forfeit the highest ideals of personal and societal well-being. These are precarious times because we have allowed not the better angels of our nature but the most reprehensible and abhorrent fiendishness of our nature to rise in our midst. This is so much deeper and so much wider than one’s political party or one’s personal druthers. It doesn’t work that way in a true democracy. It’s not about one-side winning. It’s about living together with care for one’s neighbor, respect and welcome to the stranger among us, justice for all, concern for the poor, kinship with the earth that sustains us, and, again, maintaining unity with diversity and diversity in unity. If we do not elect people who are intelligent, high-minded, emotionally mature who act in a dignified manner whether the cameras are rolling or not and who are willing to work respectfully with others who hold different views and reach negotiated consensus in service to the greater common good, then the “American experiment”—which has always been flawed—will take three giant steps backward and leave a collective stocking of coal to our undeserving children and grandchildren.

ARTWORK: (Top) Colleen Browning (1929-2003), Union Mixer. (Bottom) Brenda Hance, Liberty and Justice for All.