Interesting food for thought. I don't think enemies and cowards are opposite or different enough to make this a compelling argument. I don't think dividing people into these two categories is helpful in understanding leadership. I can easily see enemies and cowards on the same side of the spectrum..... enemies are often the least courageous of all and cowards can bring both good and evil.
I think where the (albeit, very rough) categories of enemy and coward are helpful for me in at least two places.
First is in distinguishing leaders who actively want bad things (i.e. a white ethnostate or regressive tax policy) from leaders who want good things (i.e. reproductive justice or progressive tax policy) but will sacrifice the good things given the right choice.
The second reason I like those categories is how it helps me understand another category of leader I didn't spend much time on: "heroes" or "principled leaders" or something like that. I'd put Cori Bush in that category, for example, someone who would not "trade in" her values on Palestine and who suffered the consequences by getting primaried out.
Ultimately though, I definitely agree with you that there are strong similarities between these kinds of leaders. I also didn't mean to imply that cowards don't bring about good things. They often do! It's the mutability of their commitments that creates issues.
Something that could've been stronger in this piece is the argument that whether or not we've got an "enemy" or a "coward" or a "hero" even in office, the community engagement and active work doesn't stop.
Hi Fred,
Interesting food for thought. I don't think enemies and cowards are opposite or different enough to make this a compelling argument. I don't think dividing people into these two categories is helpful in understanding leadership. I can easily see enemies and cowards on the same side of the spectrum..... enemies are often the least courageous of all and cowards can bring both good and evil.
Thanks for reading Cathy :)
I think where the (albeit, very rough) categories of enemy and coward are helpful for me in at least two places.
First is in distinguishing leaders who actively want bad things (i.e. a white ethnostate or regressive tax policy) from leaders who want good things (i.e. reproductive justice or progressive tax policy) but will sacrifice the good things given the right choice.
The second reason I like those categories is how it helps me understand another category of leader I didn't spend much time on: "heroes" or "principled leaders" or something like that. I'd put Cori Bush in that category, for example, someone who would not "trade in" her values on Palestine and who suffered the consequences by getting primaried out.
Ultimately though, I definitely agree with you that there are strong similarities between these kinds of leaders. I also didn't mean to imply that cowards don't bring about good things. They often do! It's the mutability of their commitments that creates issues.
Something that could've been stronger in this piece is the argument that whether or not we've got an "enemy" or a "coward" or a "hero" even in office, the community engagement and active work doesn't stop.
Thanks again for reading and weighing in!!