Leadership means doing what’s right, even when it’s unpopular

Some say leadership — real leadership, not the kind that panders to the latest opinion poll — is the kind that stands firm in the face of overwhelming criticism. It means doing what’s right, even when it’s unpopular.

Take the parent who is limiting screen time or enforcing curfews to instill discipline and protect their children.

Or the teacher holding students accountable for their actions, even when it means upset parents. Or the pastor of a church who speaks biblical truths on a divisive topic, even when it risks agitating the congregation or shrinking attendance.

It’s often been said, “The right thing to do and the hard thing to do are usually the same thing.” And there are certainly many examples in history of such.

Imagine being Abraham Lincoln in 1862, standing at the crossroads of a divided nation, knowing that issuing the Emancipation Proclamation would ignite a firestorm, and then doing it anyway. Yet Lincoln saw the bigger picture and knew that ending slavery was not only morally right, but essential to preserving the Union.

In 1948, President Truman made the incredibly unpopular decision to desegregate the armed forces. Truman faced backlash from all corners, but he knew a military divided was a military weakened and, in a country founded on the principle that all men are created equal, his decision was the right one, even if it would cost him the election.

What about Winston Churchill in 1940?

Europe was in chaos. Hitler’s war machine was on the march, and many in Britain (including those in his own cabinet) wanted to negotiate peace, but Churchill would have none of it. He believed that appeasement would only embolden Hitler. Can you imagine if Churchill had caved to pressure? History would be unrecognizable today.

So, this got me thinking about leaders, especially elected ones, and whether we should expect them to only take positions on issues that mirror the popular positions of their constituents on those issues. Is that leadership on their part? Or does it make them nothing more than a weathervane, pointing in whatever direction the political winds may be blowing?

I mean, do you want elected officials voting their conscience, even when that vote directly opposes the will of their voters? Or does the principle of “consent of the governed” mean they are obligated to align with the majority view of those who sent them to office?

Take Senator Bill Cassidy, for example.

His decision to vote to impeach President Trump after the events of January 6 — and let’s not mince words here — was a slap in the face to the overwhelming majority of Louisianans who support Trump. Now, Cassidy would argue he was acting on principle, that he believed Trump’s actions warranted impeachment, and it was his duty to make that judgment, regardless of public opinion.

After all, the United States is not, and never has been, a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, the majority rules on every decision, and the voice of the minority is often drowned out. And the Founding Fathers, who knew the dangers of mob rule, created a republic instead, where elected officials serve as representatives, not mere measuring sticks of public opinion.

Even in a constitutional republic, the “consent of the governed” doesn’t mean direct oversight on every vote by an elected official — that would be impossible and impractical. This is where voting one’s conscience comes into play.

But what happens when that so-called conscience becomes disconnected from the people it’s supposed to serve? In Senator Cassidy’s case, what happens is that he’s drawing two Republican challengers (so far) to his re-election in 2026, as well as the ire of Republicans throughout Louisiana who remain firmly in Trump’s corner.

So, if we are a “republic” and not governed by “mob rule,” and if leadership means doing what’s right, even when it’s unpopular, why is Cassidy the subject of so much scorn?

I believe it isn’t just a question of whether Cassidy or any elected official should vote their conscience; it’s whether they have the right to redefine their role in a way that contradicts the very essence of representation. You see, the consent of the governed isn’t a “blank check” written on Election Day; it’s a guiding principle that must inform every decision of that elected official.

Does that mean elected officials can only vote according to what the likely voter polls show? No, not at all.

If an elected official truly believes their conscience compels them to vote against their constituents, they simply must be prepared to face the consequences. They must explain their decision, engage in dialogue, make a compelling case for why they voted the way they did (which Cassidy really hasn’t done) and accept that their constituents may simply choose someone else to represent them in the next election.

That’s not a flaw in the system. It’s not the fault of difficult, retaliatory constituents who just want to get even with their elected official by voting them out of office.

It’s just part of the design. And thankfully so.

Louis R. Avallone is a Shreveport businessman, attorney and author of “Bright Spots, Big Country, What Makes America Great.” He is also a former aide to U.S. Representative Jim McCrery and editor of The Caddo Republican. His columns have appeared regularly in 318 Forum since 2007. Follow him on Facebook, on Twitter @louisravallone or by e-mail at louisavallone@mac.com, and on American Ground Radio at 101.7FM and 710 AM, weeknights from 6 - 7 p.m., and streaming live on keelnews.com.