Chaleff is a speaker, innovative thinker and the author of “ To Stop a Tyrant: The Power of Political Followers to Make or Brake a Toxic Leader. ” This is the second entry in a series on political followership.
In my previous op-ed for The Fulcrum, I examined how political followers create their leaders, just as much as leaders create their followers. I observed that while our culture may still romanticize leaders, the real work of governing is done by skilled and courageous followers. Let’s explore this further, this time using a dance floor analogy.
In straight culture, a man usually leads a woman in ballroom dancing. Many men share my experience: When I have tried my hand (or foot) at dancing — whether it’s the Texas two-step or the Argentine tango — my novice partner would endure my clunky moves as I “lead” her in the most basic steps, hopefully without bruising her or other couples, or ricocheting off a wall. Not a pretty sight.
In the same lesson, when a more advanced dancer was my partner and took the follower role, I suddenly looked like a halfway competent lead. I was still formally doing the lead steps, but she was subtly guiding me into the music, the tempo, the weight shifts onto the correct foot, while keeping us to the spatial lanes and away from the walls. The follower had made the leader look good!
Anyone who has been involved in politics or governance knows this is an apt metaphor for how followers make political leaders look good.
I’ve been writing and teaching about followership for several decades and while my work has found its way around the world, only now am I applying it directly to politics. Particularly when examining politics at a national level, it quickly became clear that “follower” behavior needs to be broken down by access to the leader. This has resulted in a new way of visualizing political followership.
Confidants clearly have the most direct access. In the case of the White House, they have “walk in” privileges when they need the ear of the president. Oftentimes it is a close family member who can be the last voice the president hears before making a decision, whether that’s Jill Biden or Donald Trump Jr.
Elites can relatively easily get the attention of the leader. They have something the leader wants — a large following, deep pockets for campaign contributions, the power to move or block important legislation, media platforms. Elon Musk, Peter Theil, Nancy Pelosi, James Clyburn and Taylor Swift all fit into this category.
No head of government achieves objectives without working through the bureaucrats who play a significant role in transforming goals, policy and legislation into actionable and enforced programs. But large agencies can develop a mind of their own. They can “slow walk” or procedurally hamper both the bad ideas of a would-be-tyrant and the good ideas of a would-be reformer, without being blatantly non-compliant.
Activists are the spark that gets the broader public moving in favor of (or against) candidates and their political agendas. Their power to influence is many times greater than that of an average citizen. Whether this is Dan Schultz advocating for MAGA Republicans to fill the seats of precinct captains, or Stacey Abrams (before she became a nationally known figure) mobilizing minority voters in Georgia, they have an impact on policy formulation that rivals those of elites.
Those who make up the populace are the citizens and non-citizens alike who are affected by the actions of government and fill the stadiums and arenas to support the political leaders whom they feel most represent their views and interests. They may never personally meet the candidate or fully examine their platforms, yet make the ultimate difference in elevating their preferred candidate through their support.
In each entry in my series, I will take a dive into the vulnerability and power of each type of follower, offering a taste of what I explore in depth in my new book, “ To Stop a Tyrant.” Like couples on the dance floor, competent or courageous followers will make a good leader look better than they are. Conversely, bad or colluding followers will make a bad leader worse, to all of our detriment.
Begin paying attention to which circle of followers you fall into, in relation to different political leaders (local, state, national), and how you might be making them look better than they really are. Then consider what a courageous follower would do.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.