Steady Leadership?

Questions for the moment

Credit: Drew Angerer

Steadiness has long been a hallmark of effective leadership. 

When one reports from the panic of crises — wars, natural disasters, economic implosions — it is often immediately apparent who has the ability to rise above the chaos. Those people, imbued with a steadfast calm, have an inherent capacity to triage, comfort, inspire, and command respect. They exude effectiveness. They build resilience. They inspire hope. And people rally around them.

When we began this newsletter, there was a man in the Oval Office and an ethos dominating our government that exuded disarray, fecklessness, and turmoil. One of the reasons we chose to name our efforts “Steady” was an implicit criticism of a president who exuded the opposite of steadiness. 

We are living at a time of great precariousness. Much of it stems from the destabilizing forces of the last administration. But there are also many currents that are far older, deeper, and more pervasive. 

We have the biggest war in Europe since World War II. We have inflation spurred from the aftermath of a global pandemic. We have a rising, belligerent China. We now have a banking crisis. We have persistent social flashpoints around issues like homelessness, crime, immigration, and drug dependency. 

The list of immediate topics that threaten our equilibrium can feel unending. And then there are ones that loom over us and call into question the very future of our species, like the climate crisis, and now, artificial intelligence. 

What do we know about the dangers we face and refuse to confront? What are we not anticipating? How do we stay steady when the seas of life are roiling and the waves of uncertainty crash upon us with unexpected ferocity?

One of the most prominent characteristics of the Biden administration is a deep belief in steadiness. The president himself, and the women and men who lead his cabinet and staff his administration, tend to be serious, sober-minded, and thoughtful. Perhaps they are even boring in terms of occupying media oxygen. This tendency seems to be by design; the bet is that these are the qualities that will provide effective leadership on the myriad concerns facing this nation and the world. 

In recent days, we have seen this mindset in full display on issues ranging from a banking meltdown to the Russian downing of an expensive piece of American drone hardware over the Black Sea. Will these crises radiate into more lasting fissures of instability? Can the administration manage the impact? Will destructive forces be beyond control? Will the measures now being undertaken make matters worse?

In the end, will the Biden presidency’s effort to deliberately project steadiness — indeed, to be steady — be effective?

In our news ecosystems — abetted by partisan outlets and social media — it is usually the loudest and most reckless voices that garner significant attention. In this environment, steadiness can be misconstrued as passivity. Action, even if intemperate, is too often valued more than thought. 

There is of course also a place in our world for passion, instinct, and fevered activity. Many of our most valued artists, writers, poets, and musicians have been prone to instability. It can be a crucible for creativity. We need all kinds of people to make this world interesting. 

But who do we want staring down grave challenges, leading a nation, navigating through a crisis? Steadiness can be bold. It can be decisive. It can be creative, as well. 

It is this version of leadership that Biden and his team are trying to project. Steadiness. Is it working? Is it what America wants? Is it what America and the world need?

The tides of history roll. The winds of change howl. Questions abound that only an unknowable future can answer. 

Note: We’re deeply thankful for the Steady community. If you aren’t already a member, please consider subscribing. Both free and paid options are available.