Braveheart and Leadership

In Braveheart, when King Edward throws his son's (obvious) lover out a castle window to his death, no one dares object! Not his son, who hates him, nor anyone else, either. There were no journalists, no investigative reporters in those days--the late 1200's--and Kings ruled with absolute power. Courts, and churches did what the King told them. And that was in England, home of the Magna Carta, which gave nobles, at least, some rights, and established the principle that government is limited; it does not have absolute power, whether power resides in a single monarch, an elective president, a prime minister, or even a committee.

There was no such thing as a Magna Carta in the Roman Empire; Emperors ruled even more absolutely, and if they were insane (Caligula, Elagabulus) there was no recourse but assassination or civil war. Legal limits, and later legal procedures in England did limit royal civil wars; most successions were not disputed--as they were constantly in the later Roman Empire--and there were ways to deal with incompetent kings. Braveheart accurately characterizes King Edward I as manly but ruthless: Edward orders archers to shoot down his own troops as they fight the Scots--he's determined to get the Scots--and Wallace. What does he care if some of his finest are destroyed by his orders; he's got more troops in reserve.

Braveheart was not that true to the history in other ways, but Edward I was accurately portrayed. Although the film preceded Bush (it was issued in 1995), it legitimized Bush's later arbitrary seizures of power. Of course we identify with Wallace, who fights for FREEDOM! But the second most powerful character in the movie is King Edward. And he wins. Historically, he outlived Wallace by several years.

Robert the Bruce did become leader of an independent Scotland, but you wouldn't know it from Braveheart; in it he's a turncoat and a sell-out, although a reluctant one; history doesn't bear out this portrayal, however.

Bush's model, really, was King Edward, and monarchs like him: the sovereign with no limits. Unlike Edward, Bush had to contend with many irksome critics, but still, his claim of powers were not unlike King Edwards', despite his constant recitation, like Wallace, of the cause of FREEDOM. Government was his secret business, and he was "the decider."

What is Obama's model? You won't find him in Braveheart. He is the wise leader, who counsels and exhorts, but insists that everyone has a part to play, and should know what their government is doing.

Perhaps there are historical, or pre-historical models for this kind of leadership: small tribal communities come immediately to mind; I'm sure there were others. In a small, uncomplicated society, the chief is someone everyone knows; if he is a good chief, everyone trusts him, but he has no power if his people don't believe in him.

If Obama is to govern effectively, he does not rule; he leads, like the good chief; he doesn't rule like the imperious Edward in Braveheart, or like Bush. Right now Obama is attempting to use the President's "bully pulpit" to build popular support for the stimulus bill moving through Congress; that's leading, not ruling.

This is a democracy, again. The monarchical intrigues of Braveheart--or Dick Cheney--aren't really how it works now, or shouldn't be. In the contemporary USA, people do count; they aren't just bodies that an arbitrary king can order to certain death. Obama mobilized a movement of the people. Whether he can keep it alive through change.gov and its later iterations, is less important than that he knows where power comes from: the people. Wallace knew that in Braveheart.

Obama's movement has energized progressive groups not only to political action, but to direct action, as well, like the worker occupation of Windows and Doors in Chicago, and the defense of foreclosed homeowners, like Acorn's Home Defender program. Maybe Obama represents a new model for power. I saw some of it demonstrated when I heard the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, a former Republican Congressman, speak about how he supported Obama's program wholeheartedly, and that he hoped he'd have better luck persuading his former colleagues when the stimulus plan "went to (House-Senate) Conference."

We don't live in feudal times, for which we should all be thankful, but our nation and our world have gotten much smaller, and the wise chieftain model is more appropriate now than before the advent of television and the internet. The insurgent rebel, like William Wallace, Braveheart's hero, is no longer appropriate: Obama is now the elected President, the center of power.

Obama is no ruler by divine right, like the imperious King Edward--or Bush-Cheney. He is the leader of a free people.