Right now, the staff team I’m a part of is spending a few minutes during our weekly staff meeting discussing John Maxwell’s book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership. Each week we take one chapter from the book, share some of the salient points we highlighted from our reading, and talk about how it applies to our lives and the church we’re serving.
Last week we talked about The Law of Solid Ground which states that trust is the foundation of leadership—that the consistency of our character, and our ability to honor and abide by the promises we make, is the basis of effective leadership. People we trust say what they mean, mean what they say, and live out the implications of their words. When we, as leaders, don’t follow through on what we say and/or back down from promises we make, a lack of trust is the result. And people won’t follow and support leaders they don’t trust.
I was thinking about that as I saw the various maneuverings and machinations by the Republicans in the United States Senate in the wake of the passing of Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As we all know, justices to the Supreme Court are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate after being vetted by the Judicial Committee. Many of us also remember that when Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, President Obama put forward Merrick Garland to be his replacement. The Republicans, who controlled the Senate, balked and stated that the appointment should be put off until a new president and Congress were seated the following January. Because the Republicans controlled the Senate, they also controlled the calendar, and the recommendation of Garland died because it was never raised by Republican leadership to be acted upon.
Numerous Republican legislators said it would be unnecessarily divisive and disruptive to act upon a judicial recommendation in an election year—that it should be delayed until after the election so the people’s voice could be heard. But now, only four years later, they are not following their own precedent and pushing for a nomination and confirmation process a mere two months before an election. The logic that this time is different because the Senate and presidency are held by the same political party does little to disguise its political convenience. They can make the argument there haven’t been many cross-party Supreme Court nominations in an election year before, but the fact is there haven’t been many vacancies when that was the case either. What it boils down to is when a president from the other party brought the nomination, they dug in their heels and cried “foul.” But when it’s their guy bringing the nomination, they are reversing their stance and justifying their actions as their constitutional duty. It comes off as insincere.
Obviously, this creates a lack of trust in the hearts of many. The Republicans’ words from four years ago about being concerned about principle and valuing the will of the people ring hollow and come off as empty and hypocritical. What they are doing is eroding people’s trust not only in them as individuals, but also in their party and the political process as a whole. And, perhaps worst of all, it is empowering and giving permission to the other side to behave with the same ruthlessness—to be unscrupulous and without conscience in the pursuit of their objectives. Things are only going to get nastier and more toxic from here. It is hard to imagine Democrats trusting Republicans in the wake of this stunt. And the fact of the matter is the best legislation tends to be the result of someone reaching across the aisle and finding common ground with someone in the other party. But it's hard to cut deals—to make compromises to pass legislation—if there’s not a sense of trust you can tap into that lies beyond your philosophical differences. Can you imagine, in this environment, the parties coming together on a supplemental coronavirus aid package for those who are still dealing with the fallout of this debilitating pandemic?
We have a system that has become incredibly partisan and divided. We talk in the pledge of allegiance about being a nation that is “indivisible,” but we are currently a nation that is incredibly divided—politically, racially, economically, as well as in a number of other ways. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a noted liberal when nominated to the Supreme Court, was confirmed by a 96-3 vote—in fact, Mitch McConnell voted for her confirmation. Justice Antonin Scalia, who was considered a fierce advocate for conservatism, was confirmed 98-0 with the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Joe Biden supporting the nomination. But it’s certainly not that way now! And when the Republicans had the opportunity to help alleviate the divide—to seize the moral high ground and engender trust by upholding and abiding by the precedent they set four years earlier—they backed down and decided to do what was in the best interests of their political objectives. When they had the opportunity to either establish or erode trust, they chose to erode it. They sacrificed their character and credibility on the altar of political power and expediency.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m all for a judge that will approach the Constitution and interpret the law the way the Republicans want. But is it worth ceding the trust of your congressional colleagues as well as a large percentage of the American public to bring that about? Do the ends justify the means—particularly when those means come at the expense of people’s perception of your integrity and character? I contend that is an incredibly shortsighted approach … and one that, while it may create a short-term “win”, will come with some regrettable long-term costs.
I’ve heard a number of Republicans claim that if the shoe were on the other foot—if the Democrats had control of the Senate and the White House and, by their actions, had established a similar precedent four years earlier—they’d be doing the same thing and trying to push a nomination through before the election. But that doesn’t exonerate the Republicans’ actions; it merely highlights the depth of the problem. It speaks to how pervasive and extensive the issue really is.
A team cannot win if its members do what they want to the exclusion of what’s best for the team as a whole. Can you imagine how an orchestra would sound if each member were to play what they wanted rather than what the conductor directed? Or … how an athletic team would perform if each member were trying to do his/her own thing rather than contribute to the team’s goals? It would be a disaster!
By the same token, a moral and virtuous society depends upon each of us. Without virtue, self-restraint, and a sense of character, we’ll eventually lose our freedom. And when the people charged with legislating and making laws to govern that society tarnish our trust by their actions, it sabotages and cripples the fabric of that society. And it sets the stage for its continued decline and ultimate downfall.
I’m not trying to be apocalyptic and doomsday. I’m just trying to highlight that I believe there are loftier and more critical issues at stake here than whether many of us get a Supreme Court justice who is to our liking. The Republicans’ not honoring the precedent they lobbied for and implemented, and breaching our trust as a result, feels a lot like Esau trading the birthright and blessing for a bowl of soup. My guess is some time after he made that exchange, he looked back on what he did and said, “That was unwise on my part!”