Unpolitical: Leadership
October 29, 2026
The poor trees.
They are suffering mightily this election season in Cincinnati — seemingly more so than ever.
Every day in our mailbox, we receive approximately 48 fliers — the full-color, glossy-print kind, mind you — for four candidates running in the two statewide elections (U.S. Senate and governor) in Ohio.
And every day, I scoff: “Silly campaigns. Don’t they realize that one must receive 49 fliers a day to change his/her mind? Forty-nine’s the magic number.”
The trees should not have to pay for such numeric ineptitude.
Especially since exactly none of these fliers states how any of these candidates will lead. Instead, all of these fliers state how debase and deficient the opposition is.
When I was younger, I learned this truth: You can’t make yourself taller by cutting down others around you. And now that I’m old(er), I understand this related one: If you cannot articulate how you lead, you likely cannot lead at all.
Think with me on this: Is there any domain other than politics in which a (or, maybe the) pervasive argument for why one is qualified to lead is, “Hey, please notice how badly that other person sucks”?
And might that argument pervade because said domain actually knows very little — and/or cares very little — about leadership?
Yes, yes: I know — I need to be careful with my claims here…I realize that emotionally charged people (I’m tore up over those trees, remember) state things they later regret. Still, I’d wager that these days many — most? — American citizens are neither excited about, nor hopeful because of, persons in national political roles. (That was certainly the sentiment a few years back, as Pew Research discovered.)
Now, I’m persuaded that persons in local political roles are more often leaders than those in national roles. That is, our country’s political leadership lack is more acute at the national level (including state governors). Why? One plausible reason is this: The higher the political office, the more one is required — by the system — to be(come) a politician to win an election…and the more one is a politician, the less one is a leader.
By definition, a politician’s job is to set policy. To set policy, a politician needs a position, an office (and, sadly, some politicians will do most anything to keep that office). Because policy is a mechanism of power, the more power politicians secure, the more effective at — and ensnared by— politics they become.
By definition, a leader’s job is to serve people. To serve people, a leader needs no position, no office. Because service is a mechanism of love, the more leaders love others, the more effective at — and influential through — leading they become.
Clearly, “politics” and “leadership” look very different on paper. Also clearly, in practice.
And I’m sad.
Sure, about the trees.
But more so, sad about a system that — by design? — puts forth candidates (again, referring primarily to those at the national level) who regularly make sensible people wonder, “Are these really our best options?”
A rhetorical question — but not because the obvious answer is “No.” Rather, rhetorical because the obvious answer is “Yes.”
Yes, the candidates on our ballots really are the best — at politics; they are the best politicians.
Which by no means makes them the best leaders, however.
Unpolitical: Leadership was originally published in Horizon Performance on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
