Molineaux is the lead catalyst for American Future, a research project that discovers what Americans prefer for their personal future lives. The research informs community planners with grassroots community preferences. Previously, Molineaux was the president/CEO of The Bridge Alliance.
We love heroic leaders. We admire heroes and trust them to tackle our big problems. In a way, we like the heroes to take care of those problems for us, relieving us of our citizen responsibilities. But what happens when our leaders fail us? How do we replace a heroic leader who has become bloated with ego? Or incompetent?
Heroic leaders are good for certain times and specific challenges, like uniting people against a common enemy. We find their charisma and inspiration compelling. They help us find our courage to tackle things together. We become a team, supporting the hero’s vision.
Yet there are several situations where heroic leadership is not helpful or perhaps harmful. I find heroic leadership harmful when the chosen hero causes distrust, encouraging paranoia among their followers. We must choose our heroes carefully, identifying values and virtues our country needs, then measuring our leaders by these values and virtues.
A project launched in 2019 sought to educate college students to “ Vote by Design.” Its workbook helped voters to think about the qualifications needed for the president, with professional and personal qualities. Reading through the workbook felt similar to serving on jury duty. I didn’t want to think this much, but once I was there and reminded of my role as a citizen, I knew I had to do my best.
As citizens, our role is to be job interviewers! The more we identify qualities we want our chosen and elected leaders to have, the easier it is to choose.
Few are happy with the 2024 choices we’ve been offered for president. Our excitement or feelings about the candidates are currently unimportant. It’s what we do with the choices we have that matter. Have you considered the team supporting the two likely candidates? We could extend this exploration of values and virtues to the vice presidential picks and one or more likely Cabinet members. This is prudent in 2024 because both candidates are elders. Death is a possibility. Who are their current and past advisors?
Who is the “hero in waiting?” And what qualifications and skills do they have? They will likely be needed to support or replace the president. Who are the candidates surrounding themselves with? What type of leaders are on the team? This choice to examine the team surrounding each candidate is needed because our definition of a leader has been expanding from “heroic” to “facilitator.” What a welcome change!
A facilitative leader gathers a team of experts and guides them to bring their best to the job. The leader facilitates a solution that was not previously known but is better for all the input received. Facilitative leaders usually share credit for accomplishing the goal with the entire team. It is a longer and messier process to achieve results. Patience is required. Abraham Lincoln was this type of leader. In his time, he held the nation together through a Civil War.
Heroic leaders command action. They tend to make everything black and white, avoiding nuance. Our human brains love this. It is simple and easy to follow. It’s also like having a hammer and thinking every problem is a nail. If instead, the problem is complicated, the hammer approach makes things worse. Teddy Roosevelt was that type of leader, exposing corruption with his Rough Rider persona. He was sometimes effective and often there were unintended consequences for his actions. People were the collateral damage for his heroism.
Our duty calls as we enter the remaining months of an election that no one wants. If we abdicate our role as citizens, power-hungry people will fill the void with whatever benefits them the most. It is up to us to pick the best presidential team to move our nation forward.
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.