True Leadership Asks, "And then what?"

The difference between effective and ineffective leadership lies mostly in asking the question, “And then what?” Every decision we make has consequences, both intended and unintended. Effective leaders think about, and address, the repercussions before they arise.

I’ve thought about this while watching our local and national officials wrestle with the issues of our day. Higher taxes are bad. Agreed. But is encouraging more casino gambling in New Hampshire really the best answer to closing the budget gap? Borders should be secure. Agreed. But once secured will our legal immigration system properly align with the workforce needs of our economy? Government waste is bad. Agreed. But in a two-party system how do we determine which government programs are actually a necessity and then properly audit them? War is bad. Agreed. But what does the future look like if an aggressor is rewarded or we cede control of NATO and back out of alliances?

And then there’s the current debate on transgender participation in sports, use of shared facilities, and parental rights. I hear the concerns regarding safety and fairness in sports as well as safety and comfort in shared facilities. And I share those concerns. Though I do think some of the safety discussion about shared facilities makes an assumption about transgender people that confuses being different with being dangerous. I also find it telling that we don’t talk about the safety in sports or shared facilities of those born female who identify as male or the potential danger to transgender people using facilities that do actually correspond with their birth gender. Those observations aside, it seems we are on the path to bar transgender females from participating in female sports and using female shared facilities. But there are nearly two million transgender Americans, and the rate of those so identifying is increasing. So I ask, and then what?

The Declaration of Independence laid the bold foundation that all of us, endowed by our Creator (not by our government), have the unalienable right to pursue happiness. All of us. Not just those with whom we agree. And not just those who we understand. And if those words of the Declaration aren’t enough, the 14th amendment to the Constitution makes crystal clear that we are all guaranteed equal protection under the law. So can the answer to questions surrounding public shared facilities and taxpayer-funded sports really be to say to two million people and growing, “You’re on your own; figure it out”? Or is it just possible that we have an obligation to think about how to structure those moving forward? Excluding, without thinking about solutions, is not leadership.

I remember as a young teenager sitting in religion class at Trinity High School watching the “Eyes on the Prize” series about the civil rights movement in America in the 1950s and 1960s. I remember thinking – how could anyone have ever been on the wrong side of that issue. Decades from now we will be judged by young, idealistic eyes on how we handle every issue of our day. How will those eyes see us?

Some say the Democratic party has gone too far with identity politics. I agree. They sometimes celebrate our differences too much and our similarities not enough. They sometimes behave as if somewhere in our governing documents is a guarantee that the pursuit of happiness should be easy or can be done at the expense of another’s happiness.

Conversely, my fellow Republicans sometimes behave as if differences shouldn’t exist at all and that those who are different should stay out of the way. They sometimes behave as if the majority’s will must be done. Well it mustn’t, because America is a republic not a democracy. And I thank God for that distinction, because the virtue of a republic is that it seeks to protect the rights of any minority from the will of any majority, no matter the enflamed passions of the day.

These are complex issues with no easy answers. But we can’t skip the questions. Our leaders don’t have the luxury of enflamed passions. They must be thoughtful, deliberate, forward-looking, and serve all. So give me the answer to the question “and then what?” And be consistent about it. If New Hampshire can say that parents have the absolute right to all information from schools regarding their child, can it really then say parents don’t have an absolute right to decide with their child and their child’s doctor what proper courses of treatment may be for that child? It seems to me we pick and choose when we believe in certain rights, be they individual, parental, or state. And we spend an inordinate amount of time trying to tell people what to do with their own bodies. There is a special kind of arrogance in that.