"The Honor Deficit"

  I remember reading way back at the turn of the last century that the people that graduated from our elite schools were imbued with a sense of duty, (besides making money) of a sense of altruism, a sense to do what's is good for the country also, to temper their judgement and decisions as to not hurt the country in their pursuit of fame and fortune, and most did just that, and those that didn't were shunned by high society.  But now how things have changed, our "elites" work at cross purposes to the needs of the country, like they want us to fail, not realizing that if we fail, they will also, somehow believing that they money and power will protect them, but it won't...Where could they go...Europe?   That place is more of a dumsterfire than we are, the middle East?...nope China has a lot of influence there as does the Mullah's.  Short sighted they are, their fortunes are tied in with this country, and they have forgotten it.   The word is "Honor", most of them mock that word now, it used to mean something, but now it is an old word, archaic word of a bygone era, and few of them follow the edicts of it, like the word of "integrity", another word that has lost its meaning.  I don't know how its going to end, but it seems that the seamier the politician, the more popular he/she is.

    I shamelessly clipped this from Michael Smith...

Through nearly 50 years of management and leadership experience, I have come to believe the most important aspects of leadership—and relationships more broadly—come down to four basic things: honor, credibility, competence, and trust. These are the four cornerstones of true leadership. Honor is the supreme core value among equals. It is the foundation upon which everything else rests. My definition of honor consists of three basic elements: honesty, loyalty, and service. First, honesty. No value can exist without honesty as its foundation. Truth is essential to every relationship—political, professional, or personal. Once honesty is compromised, everything built upon it begins to decay. A leader who is not committed to the truth cannot maintain the confidence of those he leads for long. Second, loyalty. Honesty begets loyalty. Loyalty is unwavering commitment to purpose, obligations, and ideals. It does not mean blind allegiance to personalities or factions. True loyalty is loyalty to principles and to the mission at hand. It means standing by commitments even when circumstances become difficult. Third, service. There are times when things must be done simply because they need to be done. Service means recognizing that leadership is not primarily about status or recognition but about responsibility. Necessary things are done without regard for recompense, reward, or applause. The leader serves the mission and the people—not the other way around. Credibility and competence are equally essential. Credibility combines honor with action. A leader must do what he says he will do and live up to his commitments, even when keeping them becomes inconvenient or costly. Words are easy. Promises are easy. Credibility is built only when those promises are honored in difficult circumstances. Credibility cannot exist without competence. A leader who lacks competence cannot sustain credibility no matter how sincere his intentions may be. True leaders make personal commitments to learn as much as possible about the problems they face, the situations they encounter, and the people they lead. Continuous learning, self-discipline, and the desire to improve are the basic elements of competence. Leadership requires the humility to understand that mastery is never complete. Trust is the final product of these qualities working together. Honor establishes the moral foundation. Competence ensures that decisions are grounded in knowledge and ability. Credibility proves that words and actions align. When these elements come together consistently over time, trust naturally follows. It is my belief that honor—or the lack of it—is one of the key factors behind many of the social, political, and economic struggles facing America today, and perhaps much of the Western world. For most of human history, leadership was judged first through the lens of honor. A person’s word was expected to mean something. Reputation mattered. Among peers, the loss of honor could be more devastating than the loss of office or influence. A leader who could not be trusted with the truth was not simply criticized; he was discredited. Modern public life operates very differently. One aspect of the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system that I admire is the tradition of open debate in the House of Commons. Members of Parliament must stand before their political opponents and defend their positions directly. Prime Minister’s Questions forces leaders to answer criticism in real time before the entire chamber. The exchanges can be theatrical and combative, but they also create a moment of accountability where argument, wit, and knowledge are tested publicly. Contrast that with what now passes for debate in much of American political life. Today, most “debate” does not occur between political opponents at all. It occurs through media intermediaries. Politicians repeat rehearsed talking points to cable news hosts, sympathetic podcasts, or carefully curated social-media audiences. Instead of persuasion, the goal is performance, to produce a thirty-second clip that energizes supporters and generates attention. The audience is no longer fellow legislators or serious critics. The audience is the tribe. When that shift occurs, the incentives change dramatically. A politician who embarrasses himself before thoughtful critics may still receive applause from his own supporters. Loyalty to faction becomes more important than loyalty to truth, logic and evidence become secondary to messaging and narrative. The result is a public conversation increasingly detached from reason. Arguments are replaced with slogans. Complex issues are reduced to emotional cues designed to trigger outrage or applause. Truth itself becomes negotiable depending on which side of the political divide happens to be speaking. In such an environment, honor inevitably declines. Honor requires commitment to truth even when that truth is inconvenient. It requires the willingness to admit errors and the discipline to engage opponents honestly rather than caricature them for political advantage. Above all, it requires the understanding that leadership carries obligations that extend beyond the immediate demands of political victory. Those expectations once formed an informal code of conduct among leaders. They did not eliminate disagreement—far from it—but they imposed certain boundaries on behavior. Debate was expected to be fierce, but it was also expected to be grounded in argument, evidence, and reason. Without those boundaries, public life begins to resemble something closer to an MMA fight than governance. The deeper danger is not merely political dysfunction. It is the erosion of trust across society. When leaders abandon honor, credibility collapses. When credibility collapses, trust disappears, then institutions that once held a society together begin to fracture. A healthy republic ultimately depends on more than laws and procedures. It depends on the character of the people who operate within those institutions. Honor, credibility, competence, and trust are not abstract ideals, they are practical requirements for leadership in any human endeavor—from running a company to governing a nation. When those values weaken, the entire system becomes unbalanced and begins to spin apart. Restoring them will not come from better messaging strategies or more sophisticated political marketing. It will come only when citizens demand more—and when leaders once again understand that their reputation, and their honor, must matter more than the next election.