Biden, on the extreme Left, and Trump, on the extreme Right, are no longer able to feel the twinges of a pained conscience that allow them to judge themselves soberly.

They no longer learn, grow or develop; Biden and Trump’s thinking and outlook have become stagnant and entrenched. At some point for each of them, they moved from assertively defending their truth to what they believe are justified, offensive attacks for the sake of their cause. They have each cast aside civil discourse.

For example, in the days leading up to Biden’s September 1 address, he characterized the far-right Republican mindset of election denial as being like “semi-fascism.” In his address, he stated that “there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the Maga Republicans.”

To me, this is unhelpful, inflammatory rhetoric given Biden’s position and the context in which he spoke.

From my perspective, both the current and former U.S. presidents have modeled horrible failures in leadership.

We are part of the problem when we choose to follow leaders without thinking critically about who they are and how they behave.

If we have the desire and strength to be “one nation, under God, indivisible…” then I believe it may be helpful to reflect some on the difference between unity and uniformity.

I do not expect uniformity as a nation. We cannot all look the same.

For all of us to be Republican, or Democrat, or Libertarian is highly unlikely. We are not all atheist, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Christian. We do not all enjoy the same foods or activities, or have the same interests or skills. We are not all Californians, Southerners, or Mid-Westerners.

But, I do believe “Out of Many, One,” or, E Pluribus Unum. We must have some level of unity by which we function well together as a society.

In fact, we often work best together because of our many differences, and not in spite of them.

One simple definition of leadership is influence.

As a leader in the U.S., how one behaves, what one says, and how one responds under pressure can either contribute to or undermine our nation’s “oneness.”

I’m simply saying that, in my view, the current and former presidents hold great influence, and both have—whether knowingly and willingly or not—contributed greatly to the divisiveness we see today in the U.S.

Trump was interviewed last week by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. Hewitt asked the former president about the possibility of an indictment related to Mar-a-Lago:

—————————————————————

Hewitt: You know the old saying. A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if they want to. I’m just asking if there is such a prosecutor and they indict you, would that deter you from running for president again?

Trump: I don’t think the people of the United States would stand for it. And as you know, if a thing like that happened, I would have no prohibition against running. You know that. You’ve already stated that.

Hewitt: I do. That’s what I wanted people to understand. That would not take you out of the arena.

Trump: It would not. But I think if it happened, I think you’d have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before. I don’t think the people of the United States would stand for it.

Hewitt: What kind of problems, Mr. President.

Trump: I think they’d have big problems, big problems. I just don’t think they’d stand for it. They will not, they will not sit still and stand for this ultimate of hoaxes.

—————————————————————

What does Trump mean by this?

Hewitt asks for clarification, but Trump does not specify.

To whom does Trump want to communicate with these words? What message does he want to convey?

I would argue that Trump’s words, at best, are highly interpretive, confusing, and unhelpful.

Over the last few years, I've moved into the area of personnel training and development with an international company. I enjoy learning and following my curiosity.