What Donald Trump’s response to COVID-19 teaches us: It’s time for our romance with leaders to end

I write this piece at the end of April 2020 from my home in the US’s state of Maine. As of today, the Corona Virus tracker which I have been following since March (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) tells me that over 60,000 Americans have died of complications arising from the COVID-19 Virus. This is greater than the number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War. It is also more than double the death toll of the country with the next highest mortality rate, Italy, and almost 10 times that of China, with a population approaching 1.5 billion people. Investigating those numbers forensically, it is clear that African Americans as well as Latinos are dying at higher rates per head of population than White Americans. This is not surprising. The issues of structural inequality: the fact that African Americans and Latinos represent a higher proportion of those in vulnerable service jobs, that they are more likely not to own a car and therefore must rely on public transport to get to and from work, the fact that they are more likely not to own their own homes and to live in apartment blocks, means that the cards are dramatically stacked against them in terms of their vulnerability to both catching and succumbing to the disease. Yes, we may all be in this together, but some of us are much more “in it” than others.

Even with the death toll growing daily, with ice hockey rinks being converted to temporary morgues and University sports facilities transformed into makeshift hospitals, here in the US, the news is dominated by one man: Donald Trump. Forget that more people are now dying of COVID-19-related complications every day than of cancer or heart disease. Forget that over 22 million Americans have filed for unemployment in the last four weeks. Forget that cases of suicide and domestic abuse are on the rise as the toll of “sheltering in place,” either in isolation or with your abuser wreaks its effects. Indeed, the only positive well-being statistic in the US is that March 2020 was the first March in which a school shooting did not take place since 2002 (Lewis, 2020). Now there is something to be happy about.

Despite all of these horrifying statistics—there he is, every evening on CNN or Fox News—doing his daily press briefing. Telling us that he isn’t responsible for the lag in testing. Telling us that something “beautiful” is about to happen. Telling us that he wants for us to be watching baseball again, for us to be going back to work and “get our lives back.” Last week he told us that injecting disinfectant might be a suitable way of tackling the virus (“I was just being sarcastic,” he later said. I’ve watched the clip. I don’t think so.). He speaks sotto voce, in a manner not unlike a sleazy inside trader telling us he has an offer we can’t refuse. I am frustrated. I want to know the facts about what is going on. How are medical professionals in New York doing? How many tests are being done? Have more ventilators been found? What can we learn from places like Taiwan, Germany and New Zealand about how the virus can be successfully contained?

Instead I am subjected to analyses of Trump’s every and numerous faux pas. Is he inciting violence when he Tweets, “LIBERATE MICHIGAN”? Does he really believe an injection of bleach can clean people’s lungs? When did he know what about the progress of the virus? In all honesty I DON’T CARE. Why are we giving so much airtime to this man with no medical training, little logistical understanding and even less compassion at a time when we need medical knowledge of repute, someone who understands how supply chains work, and at the very least a sense of care for the millions of Americans whose lives are being turned upside down by this errant protein cluster? It’s not the Trump supporters I am wondering about, it is the rest of us, including the so-called left-wing media. Why are we giving more of our limited, precious attention to this man than we would give to any snake oil salesman?

It seems we are doing so because at this moment in time, he is the designated “leader” of the US.

As our “leader,” we look to him for answers, reassurance, and guidance. Untold (and unjustified) authority is attached to this role. That is why people in India are ingesting malaria tablets to ward off the effects of the virus—because Trump has said it would. That is why Americans are protesting outside of their governors’ homes, because Trump has encouraged them to “liberate themselves.” Because for reasons which psychologists would attribute to our basic need for security, human beings seek out those who are dominant (often as embodied in a large man) especially in times of uncertainty. That is why, even as Donald Trump denied responsibility for the lag in testing or the lack of PPE, his poll ratings rose. Political scientists refer to this as the “bump effect”: “When people are confused and afraid, they tend to trust their governments, because to think that the authorities are themselves confused and afraid, let alone incompetent, is too much to bear” (Erlanger, 2020). In times of crisis, we crave someone to tell us everything will be all right, that we needn’t worry. Even, it seems, if they lead us to our own destruction.

The social scientists James Meindl, Sanford Ehrlich, and Janet Dukerich wrote about this collective love affair with leaders over 30 years ago (Meindl et al., 1985). In trying to account for the burgeoning literature focusing on leadership, they undertook an empirical study to determine the extent to which leadership was acting as a proxy for more complex organizational dynamics. Their research was based on the assumption that “the significance placed on leadership is a response to the ill-structured problem of comprehending the causal structure of complex organizational systems” (p. 79). In other words, what really determines outcomes within systems is very difficult to understand; therefore, our psychological and sociological wiring encourages us to focus on “leaders” as figural while the other background interactions (which have a much more significant impact on outcomes) are perceived as “ground,” and thus inconsequential. Focusing on leaders rather than the more complex system dynamics in which we are all embedded may be easier, but it’s not necessarily the optimal course of action when dealing with crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. It could be argued that in relation to dealing with this crisis, Donald Trump is proving to be little more than a distraction, and a dangerous one at that. Yet, we persist with our myopic fascination with “the person in charge,” whether we agree with what they are doing or not. What is going on?

The leader as distraction

Let’s move on momentarily from psychological and sociological explanations for our focus on the leader. As I observe the sheer amount of press time devoted to Donald Trump, I am struck that there is something collectively worrying going on here. Whether you love him or you hate him, he absorbs an enormous amount of our energy. Where might we be putting that attention instead? By imbuing Trump with so much importance, are we absolving ourselves from our own responsibilities? Noticing the thrall of the leadership “myth,” almost 30 years ago the critical leadership theorists Gemmil and Oakley (1992) wrote:

The major function of the leader myth is to preserve the existing social system and structure by attributing dysfunction and difficulties with the system to the lack or absence of leadership. The dysfunctional and destructive aspects of the social system itself and the corresponding personal behavior of the members go unexamined, as does the collusion among members in creating and manufacturing the social myth of leadership (p. 118).

In other words, by focusing unflinchingly on Donald Trump and his shortcomings in handling this crisis, we distract ourselves from the significant structural aspects of the US which would make it difficult, if not impossible for any human being to handle the COVID-19 pandemic effectively in this country. These include, for instance, a health system which excludes almost a third of the population and which is dedicated to making profit, an economic approach which leaves many vulnerable people without adequate incomes and in precarious employment, a system of governance which fosters opposition between federal and state levels of authority, a significant part of the population which is anti-science and refuses to be immunized against vaccines more generally, and a cultural adherence to individuality at the expense of collective well being (New Hampshire’s state motto is “Live Free or Die” and they seem to mean that, literally!) As I write about all of these factors which have contributed to the ill-disciplined and haphazard US response to COVID-19, I can almost feel sympathy for Donald Trump. Given these dynamics, it would have been impossible for any leader to have effectively dealt with this crisis. By focusing on him and his shortcomings, we can remain oblivious to these larger forces and any sense of engagement with, or responsibility for them. We can avoid further inquiry into what is going on.

Beyond the structural factors which our focus on Trump enables us to avoid, another aspect of the larger US landscape which Trump distracts us from is the interests of the super wealthy which pull the strings of his Presidency (Graves, 2020). These include the interests of men such as Charles and David Koch, who have long been associated with funding the Tea Party, as well as Dick and Betsy Devoes who are implicated in the “Liberate America from Lockdown” movement. In her New York Times article detailing these claims, Graves reports:

Mr. Moore, who is now leading an enterprise to end the virus precautions called Save Our Country, which includes the Koch-backed American Legislative Exchange Council, boasted that he has been working behind the scenes with a conservative donor who agreed to cover bail and legal fees for demonstrators who get arrested for defying Wisconsin’s virus protective measures.

The hidden influence of wealthy individuals has perhaps always been a reality of American politics. With the rise of social media, however, the ability of such parties to incite and engage others (many of whose interests are not served by the intended ends of their puppeteers) starts to threaten democracy itself. Additionally and perhaps most worryingly, the veiled way in which they exert power means they can remain safely in the shadows, chuckling away as Donald Trump takes the heat each evening from the US press corps. We fume and fret about Trump’s almost daily atrocities while unelected individuals of means pull the strings, further dividing us, further obscuring the dynamics which are causing so many of us to die.

“Wait a second,” you might argue, “what about Jacinda Ardern’s ability to effectively lead her country through the COVID-19 crisis in New Zealand?” Surely that case proves that leaders make a difference? I am not suggesting that the steps she took as Prime Minister did not have a profound effect on the country’s ability to deal so well with COVID-19. The positive nature of her actions is analyzed by Suze Wilson elsewhere in this issue.

However, apart from Ardern’s unquestioned abilities as a leader who can pull her country together in times of crisis, the New Zealand context differs from that in the US in ways which would have worked to her benefit. At the most fundamental level, health care is provided free of charge for New Zealand citizens. In contrast, due to the US’s lack of universal health care coverage, people displaying symptoms may not have been tested due to their reluctance to incur medical costs. Another significant structural difference between New Zealand and the US is the relative populations of the two countries. New Zealand is populated by fewer than 5 million people, whereas New York City alone is the home to almost double that number. The way Ardern has led her nation through this crisis is indeed exemplary and offers numerous lessons about leading effectively in such circumstances. But even Ardern might have faltered were she trying to lead in a country with the structural, cultural, and economic characteristics of the US.

The role of leadership scholarship

If focusing on leaders is merely a way to distract us from examining “what is going on” in times of crisis (and perhaps more generally as well), what is the place of leadership scholarship? Should those of us who have devoted much of our lives to thinking about this phenomenon pack it in? I wouldn’t go quite that far (although recently that thought has crossed my mind!). Individuals do make a difference, as evidenced by a number of US state governors, as well as by the ways in which Jacinda Ardern, Angela Merkel, Tsai Ing-wan, and Mette Frederiksen have acted to contain the spread of COVID-19 in the countries they lead. However, there are two lessons I will take forward in my own work as a result of observing the handling of this crisis in the US.

Firstly, I will continue to investigate the structural and hidden dynamics which play into how situations unfold as well as how individuals assume leader roles in the first place. As I have explored in the wake of the 2016 US election (Ladkin, 2017), there were a myriad of factors which resulted in Donald Trump’s election. If these dynamics (the changing demographics in the US which create anxiety for many White people who feel their privilege eroding, technological advances which have resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs—and will continue to do so—the unquestioned acceptance of neoliberalism) remain in play, they will continue to exert their influence in future elections. Just replacing the face of the individual in charge will not change the lot for followers embedded in the larger system. Dragging our own attention away from the spectacle of the leader and instead working to reveal the scaffolding that holds him or her in place would be a progressive step for those of us committed to leadership scholarship.

Secondly, as I consider Donald Trump’s behavior, I can’t help but notice how much it is at odds with so much espoused leadership theory. Just think of the rules of responsible, ethical, and even authentic leadership he breaks several times each day. Yet literally millions of Americans still follow him, and not just extreme right wing Tea Party enthusiasts, either. Leadership scholars may tout the importance of aspirational qualities in our leaders, but that doesn’t explain why 53% of white women voted for Trump in 2016 even after the recording in which he bragged about grabbing women’s crotches was revealed.

I think that statistic points to something much more irrational and almost primal going on when followers commit to leaders. The great majority of leadership theorizing treats leadership as if it were a rationally based phenomenon, where respectability and trustworthiness win out. Donald Trump’s continued popularity suggests otherwise. Current theories don’t often approach the underbelly of the attraction between leaders and those they lead. To do so requires delving into questions such as “Why would a white woman vote for Trump in full knowledge of his misogyny?” or “Why did 29% of Hispanics vote for the man despite the fact that a key tenet of his manifesto was to build a wall between the Southwest of the US and Mexico?” Such questions take us to uncomfortable places, but if we are to get beyond our romance with leaders, asking them is a good place to start.

Watching Donald Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis is many things: frustrating, appalling, embarrassing, even amusing were the stakes not so high. Watching how we in turn fixate on Donald Trump as he engages with the crisis is perhaps even more alarming, however. Perhaps it is time for all of us to move beyond our fascination with leaders, whether in good times or bad, get beyond the distractions they offer us, and seriously ask the question, “what really is going on here?.”