If you run in preacher circles, a lot of the meetings you go to begin with some kind of devotion and close in prayer. At one the other day, someone led a devotion on the topic of the difference between a "transactional" and a "transformational" leader. A transactional leader works within the system, while a transformational leader changes the system. A transactional leader is "business as usual," while a transformational leader overwhelms "business as usual" with the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
All leadership positions in a democracy are "transactional." These leaders are elected through the processes of the system and they're there to make the system work. FDR and Reagan, contra Sen. Obama, were not transformational leaders. They didn't change the system at all. What they did was make the system more responsive to certain constituencies--people affected by the depression in the case of FDR, and white people who felt they were over-taxed in the case of Reagan. That is not transformational. It is simply democracy doing what democracy does.
There is no such thing as a "transformational" elected official. "Transformational" leadership only comes from outside the system. Martin Luther King and Lech Walesa are examples. They led popular movements, movements that were powerful enough to (temporarily) overwhelm the system. When Walesa became a government official, he ceased being a transformational leader, and became a transactional one.
In the Hebrew tradition, Moses was another transformational leader, who, when in an actual position of power, had to become a transactional one. His "personal awesomeness" no longer cut the mustard when the people got hungry, or when potholes needed to be fixed. The great prophets all came from outside the system. As soon as prophets became institutionalized, they were no longer real prophets. If you'll notice, the prophets who were inside the system--the professional prophets, the ones on the government payroll--were all false prophets. Only those who stayed outside the "establishment" remained true prophets.
This is why people interested in transformational change should not become too closely identified with any particular candidate. Transformational change is about social pressure on the system itself. As Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill said:
Some of the most prominent anti-war voices--from MoveOn.org to the magazine we write for, The Nation--have gone this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign. This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway U. S. policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.
Now, there's not a thing wrong with transactional leaders. Indeed, it is through "transactions" that things actually get done. This is why Hillary Clinton was completely correct to say that Martin Luther King's dream "began to be realized" through the work of President Johnson and the legislative process. What we need are not "transformational" leaders elected to work within the system. We need "transformational" leaders on the outside creating pressure for change. In public office, we need astute "transactional" leaders who are able to discern the political landscape, and, working with a variety of conflicting pressures and constituencies, are able to make changes that reflect the will of the people.
Comments