The Citizen

by Sarada Peri, MPP2
Opinions Editor

At a July 2005 press conference, a reporter asked President Bush about the criticism being lobbed at  Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at the time was on a very long and unimpressive list of potential Supreme Court nominees. As only Bush can, he first stated the obvious: “He’s been my lawyer in the White House; he’s now the Attorney General; he’s under — he’s being criticized.”  

Then he got a little Don Corleone: “I don’t like it when a friend gets criticized. I’m loyal to my friends.”  

Loyalty has never been so entrenched – or loaded – as in the Bush Administration. Those branded “most trustworthy and loyal servants of George Walker Bush” include such winners as Donald Rumsfeld, architect of pointless mass destruction; Michael “heckuvajob” Brown, clueless bystander to unspeakable misery in New Orleans; and of course Gonzales, whose loyalty to Bush supersedes his loyalty to the Constitution.  

But something’s gotta give. Perhaps the first serious signs of splintering were not when Rumsfeld quietly stepped away after the mid-terms, but during the Gonzales hearing when Republican senators blasted the Attorney General as mercilessly as their Democratic counterparts for his inexplicable dismissal of federal prosecutors. Finally, the blatant display of incompetence and willful disregard for things like, say, the law, were no longer tolerable to even those from the President’s own party. When Gonzales argued that sometimes the judges turned out to be the wrong people at the wrong time, Senator Lindsay Graham retorted, “If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?”
Things had hit rock bottom.  

During the hearing, Gonzales continually failed to recollect his actions in the most matter-of-fact and unconcerned way. It was almost too ridiculous to believe – he simply felt no need to answer questions or be forthright about anything. But he did remind the Senate that he was doing them quite a favor by simply showing up.  

And despite the universally scathing judgment of the disastrous hearing and Gonzales’ shameful display, the President was all praise. Completely immune from anything resembling reality, Bush said the testimony had, “increased my confidence in his ability to do the job.” After all, Alberto’s a loyal man.  

Loyal to whom, exactly? To Bush? To his family? A federal public servant needs to be channeling his loyalty to the 300 million other Americans in this land, not to the commander-in-chief alone. Bush endlessly uses the lofty rhetoric of devotion to describe people like Gonzales – essentially arguing that they deserve their powerful positions in our government because of sheer personal loyalty to the prodigal son.  

Bush distorts the notion of loyalty in all aspects of his presidency. Criticizing any executive decision is akin to treachery. You’re either with us or with…

There is something to be said for leaning on those who have come through for us time and again, and for believing in the importance of allegiance among individuals in our personal and professional lives. And we hear of the great leaders, the John Adamses and the Martin Luther King Juniors, who relied heavily on their spouses and confidantes for an unflinching steadfastness through challenging moments.  

But when loyalty is the criteria for a public servant’s appointment, as has been the rule rather than the exception in the Bush administration, we must ask whether those individuals successfully transformed their loyalty to one person into a loyalty to those whom they serve – and whether such a transformation is even possible. When the person appointed to the Department of State highest post dealing with refugees is more concerned with protecting Bush’s reputation than with crafting good policy, loyalty no longer has meaning.

As members of the Kennedy School network, we are not only connected to people who will go on to become leaders in their communities and their countries, we are each other’s loyal friends. And the forces at this school, from Ron Heifetz to KSSG, influence our ideas of leadership. Blended in with the countless discussions on what constitutes good leadership are musings on “the network” and how students will rely on their classmates down the line.  

But when you’re hiring me or I’m hiring you, let’s not conflate our ideal of personal loyalty with our ideal of good public leadership. Fidelity is certainly an admirable quality among leaders. But people who possess an unwavering devotion to the idea of devotion will never be brave enough to make hard choices that may in fact anger those they hold most dear. They are the likes of Bush, so blinded by his faith in personal connections that he will not see even the worst chain of events unfolding from that stubborn grip on friendship.

We came here to become leaders who can make the most difficult and unpopular choices. And the Kennedy School has bred loyalties among us as colleagues and friends. But as Bush’s mistakes have demonstrated, using and misusing loyalty has grave consequences. He has yet to be honest with himself about the simple fact that his friends have failed in their positions, and that as a leader he has a responsibility to act accordingly.

As we move forward to move and shake and make change, we would be wise to carry that lesson with us - to remember that while our friendships run deep and our loyalties hold strong, we must be honest in balancing those ties with our commitment to the public good.   

Article Tools