due 3/14

Tory baley

Discussion Thread: Statesmanship, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Ethics of Power

Secretary Pete Hegseth’s September 30, 2025 address to senior military leaders presents a modern case study for evaluating statesmanship in public administration. In the speech, Hegseth outlines a vision for reshaping the Department of Defense into what he calls a renewed “War Department” culture. Several statements in the speech illustrate the tone and direction of this leadership approach. At one point Hegseth declares that the United States must “untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country,” and later states that the military must be prepared to deliver “overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy” (Hegseth, 2025). In another passage, he dismisses traditional constraints by stating that the military will no longer fight wars with “stupid rules of engagement.” These statements present a leadership style rooted in aggressive authority and operational freedom. The question for public administration is whether such rhetoric reflects the type of institutional leadership traditionally associated with American statesmanship.

Benjamin Franklin’s understanding of leadership focused heavily on the cultivation of civic virtue and moral discipline. Franklin argued that republican institutions depend on leaders who demonstrate moderation, prudence, and self-governance (Franklin, 1791/2004). From Franklin’s perspective, leadership rhetoric plays an important role in shaping the ethical culture of institutions. If leaders emphasize unrestrained violence or dismiss institutional constraints, Franklin might question whether such language cultivates the civic discipline required to sustain a republic. Franklin’s statesmanship sought to elevate the moral character of both leaders and citizens, suggesting that leadership language should reinforce ethical restraint rather than celebrate the exercise of force. William Howard Taft offers a different but complementary lens. Taft’s statesmanship was expressed through institutional reform rather than rhetorical mobilization. As Chief Justice, Taft strengthened the legitimacy and efficiency of the federal judiciary by reorganizing the court system and supporting the Judges’ Bill of 1925 (Post, 2012). Taft’s leadership emphasized stability, procedural legitimacy, and administrative coherence. When compared to Taft’s approach, Hegseth’s speech raises a question about whether sweeping cultural directives delivered through rhetorical force strengthen the institutional foundations of the Department of Defense or instead risk destabilizing established norms of governance.

Thomas Jefferson introduces yet another dimension to this discussion. Jefferson faced a profound constitutional dilemma when he authorized the Louisiana Purchase despite believing that the Constitution did not explicitly grant the president authority to acquire foreign territory. Jefferson ultimately accepted the decision as necessary for the long-term security of the republic, even though it conflicted with his own constitutional philosophy (Ellis, 1997). Jefferson reportedly expressed deep personal unease about the decision, recognizing the moral and constitutional tension it created. Political theorist Michael Walzer later described this type of dilemma as the problem of “dirty hands,” in which leaders sometimes take morally troubling actions for the perceived benefit of the state while bearing the ethical burden of those decisions (Walzer, 1973). Jefferson’s internal struggle contrasts sharply with the tone of certainty and bravado expressed in Hegseth’s speech, highlighting different approaches to the exercise of political power. The practical implications of this leadership style can also be observed in recent U.S. maritime counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean. Reporting by the Associated Press indicates that U.S. naval forces have destroyed more than one hundred cartel “go-fast boats” suspected of transporting narcotics from Venezuelan waters toward Central America and the United States (Associated Press, 2025). These operations have sparked debate among legal scholars and national security analysts regarding the scope of executive authority and the proportional use of military force in counter-narcotics operations (Chesney, 2012; O’Connell, 2010). When viewed alongside Hegseth’s call to loosen operational constraints, these policies illustrate how leadership rhetoric may influence bureaucratic implementation of national security strategy.

From a public administration perspective, the central issue is not simply whether these operations are tactically effective but whether they strengthen the legitimacy of the institutions responsible for carrying them out. Franklin emphasized civic virtue, Taft emphasized institutional reform, and Jefferson acknowledged the moral burden of difficult decisions. Together, these examples suggest that statesmanship involves balancing decisive action with ethical restraint and institutional stewardship. Hegseth’s speech therefore provides a contemporary case for examining whether modern leadership rhetoric aligns with these historical traditions of American statesmanship or represents a departure from them.

A Christian worldview adds another analytical lens to this discussion of statesmanship and the ethical exercise of power. Scripture recognizes that governing authorities may legitimately wield coercive force to protect the public. The Apostle Paul writes that rulers “do not bear the sword for no reason,” but are servants of justice tasked with restraining wrongdoing (Romans 13:4, New International Version). Within Christian political thought, this passage has long been interpreted as affirming the legitimacy of government authority in matters of defense and law enforcement. War, therefore, is not inherently immoral when undertaken in circumstances of extreme self-defense or protection of the innocent. At the same time, the biblical tradition places significant emphasis on humility and restraint when exercising power. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus warns, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52, New International Version). The statement occurs when Peter attempts to defend Jesus during the arrest in Gethsemane by striking a Roman soldier with a sword. Jesus rebukes the act and restores the wounded man, emphasizing that reliance on violence carries profound moral consequences. The significance of this passage is not that all uses of force are illegitimate, but that violence pursued without restraint or moral discipline ultimately produces destructive consequences for both individuals and institutions.

Applied to contemporary leadership rhetoric, this biblical warning introduces a moral tension when leaders frame military power primarily through domination or unrestrained lethality. Statements in Secretary Hegseth’s speech emphasizing the need to “untie the hands of our warfighters” and unleash “overwhelming and punishing violence” highlight the aggressive exercise of state power (Hegseth, 2025). While decisive military force may sometimes be necessary in warfare, Christian ethics cautions that leaders must exercise such authority with prudence, humility, and moral accountability. The warning that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword” reminds political leaders that power exercised without ethical restraint risks undermining the very institutions and moral legitimacy it seeks to defend. This biblical perspective reinforces the statesmanship traditions reflected in the earlier examples of Franklin, Taft, and Jefferson. Franklin emphasized the cultivation of civic virtue and moderation among leaders and citizens. Taft strengthened institutional legitimacy through procedural reform and disciplined governance. Jefferson recognized the moral burden attached to difficult political decisions and reportedly experienced personal unease when expanding executive authority through the Louisiana Purchase (Ellis, 1997). Each example illustrates that leadership within a republic requires not only the ability to act decisively but also the wisdom to recognize the ethical weight of that power. From this perspective, the biblical warning concerning the sword serves as a reminder that legitimate authority must always be balanced by humility, moral restraint, and responsibility for the consequences of political decisions. In the context of contemporary national security policy, the challenge of statesmanship lies not merely in demonstrating strength but in exercising power in ways that sustain institutional legitimacy, moral credibility, and public trust.

References

Associated Press. (2025, October 8). U.S. Navy sinks more than 100 cartel “go-fast boats” in Caribbean crackdown on drug trafficking. Associated Press.

Chesney, R. (2012). Military-intelligence convergence and the law of the Title 10/Title 50 debate.  Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 5(2), 539–629.

Ellis, J. J. (1997).  American sphinx: The character of Thomas Jefferson. Vintage Books.

Franklin, B. (2004).  The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Yale University Press. (Original work published 1791)

Hegseth, P. (2025, September 30). Address to general and flag officers at Quantico, Virginia.

O’Connell, M. E. (2010).  The international law of drone warfare. American Society of International Law.

Post, R. (2012).  The Taft Court: Making law for a divided nation. Cambridge University Press.

Walzer, M. (1973). Political action: The problem of dirty hands.  Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2(2), 160–180.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work published 1978)

Read Less

Nathen Lowis

In Proverbs 28:10 (NLT), the scripture reads,  "Those who lead good people along an evil path will fall into their own trap, but the honest will inherit good things". By now, most of us have heard the principle of “to whom much is given, much is expected.” I believe no job embodies that more than the President of the United States. Having the honor to hold that title comes with responsibility, strong leadership qualities, and selflessness. These qualities are summed up as statesmanship. Negative is always easier to investigate than positive unfortunately, so with that being said I present to you a look into January 6th.

The insurrection of January 6th will always be remembered as a day of infamy in American History. That morning started with President Trump delivering a speech at the “Save America” rally in Washington, DC. According to the president’s schedule, after speaking at the rally, he would then head to a meeting to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election. During this speech Trump stated that,  “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Statements made similar to this are what led many to accuse President Trump of inciting the insurrection that would soon follow the rally. “It is also important to recognize that the context in which Trump spoke was very different from that of his previous speeches. Before, Trump was speaking in a bid to become President, as President or to stay as President, and he was talking in general terms about enemies, the need to defeat them, and the need for people to support him in defeating them. By contrast, the 6th January speech was oriented to preventing a very specific event—the certification of the 2020 election result by Congress. Moreover, it required direct action by followers, not just support for Trump himself” (Ntontis et al, 2024). While it was never proven by the court of law, many believe the actions that followed Trump’s speech led to the violence on Capitol Hill. “Even before Trump finished his address shortly after 1:00 pm, and just as the joint session of Congress was being convened, a mob of his supporters—including members of right-wing extremist organizations, such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters, as well as self-identified adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory—pushed through fences at the western perimeter of the Capitol grounds, forcing Capitol Police officers to retreat to additional barricades closer to the building” (Duignan, 2026). The mob would soon grow to well over 1,000, with the rioters eventually succeeding in breaching the Capital building. During the chaos, members of Congress had to be rushed to safety, law enforcement were beaten by the angry protesters, and eight people tragically lost their lives. 

“Statesmanship is exceptional leadership characterized by vision, courage, compassion, effectiveness, and civility. It does not expect perfection but assumes competence and demands excellence. Vision is the ability to see beyond the rush of daily events and to develop and execute a long term strategy. Courage has been called “grace under pressure” and demands steps that may be unpopular, with benefits that are not immediately evident” (Shaw, n.d.). Even though it was never proven that he initiated the riot, his leadership ability is very questionable. According to Fishcher’s description, I believe that Trump would be classified as a charismatic leader. It has been throughout his presidency, the ability to motivate people (Whether negatively or positive). Fischer (2010) states the issue with this leadership is “in becoming “larger than life”, is that they can also become immune to accountability and therefore can become prone to abusing power.” January 6th proved that not all statesmanship is good statesmanship.

References

Duignan, B. (2026, February 2).  January 6 U.S. Capitol Attack. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/January-6-U-S-Capitol-attack

Fischer, Kahlib, "A Biblical-Covenantal Perspective on Organizational Behavior & Leadership" (2010). Faculty Publications and Presentations. 523. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/523 

Ntontis, E., Jurstakova, K., Neville, F., Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2024). A warrant for violence? An analysis of Donald Trump’s speech before the US Capitol attack.  The British Journal of Social Psychology.,  63(1), 3–19.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12679Links to an external site.

Shaw, J. (n.d.).  What a statesman would do | Paul Simon Public Policy Institute | SIU. Retrieved March 12, 2026, from https://paulsimoninstitute.siu.edu/intiatives/what-a-statesman-would-do.php

Tory baley

Discussion Thread: Statesmanship, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Ethics of Power

Secretary Pete Hegseth’s September 30, 2025 address to senior military leaders presents a modern case study for evaluating statesmanship in public administration. In the speech, Hegseth outlines a vision for reshaping the Department of Defense into what he calls a renewed “War Department” culture. Several statements in the speech illustrate the tone and direction of this leadership approach. At one point Hegseth declares that the United States must “untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country,” and later states that the military must be prepared to deliver “overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy” (Hegseth, 2025). In another passage, he dismisses traditional constraints by stating that the military will no longer fight wars with “stupid rules of engagement.” These statements present a leadership style rooted in aggressive authority and operational freedom. The question for public administration is whether such rhetoric reflects the type of institutional leadership traditionally associated with American statesmanship.

Benjamin Franklin’s understanding of leadership focused heavily on the cultivation of civic virtue and moral discipline. Franklin argued that republican institutions depend on leaders who demonstrate moderation, prudence, and self-governance (Franklin, 1791/2004). From Franklin’s perspective, leadership rhetoric plays an important role in shaping the ethical culture of institutions. If leaders emphasize unrestrained violence or dismiss institutional constraints, Franklin might question whether such language cultivates the civic discipline required to sustain a republic. Franklin’s statesmanship sought to elevate the moral character of both leaders and citizens, suggesting that leadership language should reinforce ethical restraint rather than celebrate the exercise of force. William Howard Taft offers a different but complementary lens. Taft’s statesmanship was expressed through institutional reform rather than rhetorical mobilization. As Chief Justice, Taft strengthened the legitimacy and efficiency of the federal judiciary by reorganizing the court system and supporting the Judges’ Bill of 1925 (Post, 2012). Taft’s leadership emphasized stability, procedural legitimacy, and administrative coherence. When compared to Taft’s approach, Hegseth’s speech raises a question about whether sweeping cultural directives delivered through rhetorical force strengthen the institutional foundations of the Department of Defense or instead risk destabilizing established norms of governance.

Thomas Jefferson introduces yet another dimension to this discussion. Jefferson faced a profound constitutional dilemma when he authorized the Louisiana Purchase despite believing that the Constitution did not explicitly grant the president authority to acquire foreign territory. Jefferson ultimately accepted the decision as necessary for the long-term security of the republic, even though it conflicted with his own constitutional philosophy (Ellis, 1997). Jefferson reportedly expressed deep personal unease about the decision, recognizing the moral and constitutional tension it created. Political theorist Michael Walzer later described this type of dilemma as the problem of “dirty hands,” in which leaders sometimes take morally troubling actions for the perceived benefit of the state while bearing the ethical burden of those decisions (Walzer, 1973). Jefferson’s internal struggle contrasts sharply with the tone of certainty and bravado expressed in Hegseth’s speech, highlighting different approaches to the exercise of political power. The practical implications of this leadership style can also be observed in recent U.S. maritime counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean. Reporting by the Associated Press indicates that U.S. naval forces have destroyed more than one hundred cartel “go-fast boats” suspected of transporting narcotics from Venezuelan waters toward Central America and the United States (Associated Press, 2025). These operations have sparked debate among legal scholars and national security analysts regarding the scope of executive authority and the proportional use of military force in counter-narcotics operations (Chesney, 2012; O’Connell, 2010). When viewed alongside Hegseth’s call to loosen operational constraints, these policies illustrate how leadership rhetoric may influence bureaucratic implementation of national security strategy.

From a public administration perspective, the central issue is not simply whether these operations are tactically effective but whether they strengthen the legitimacy of the institutions responsible for carrying them out. Franklin emphasized civic virtue, Taft emphasized institutional reform, and Jefferson acknowledged the moral burden of difficult decisions. Together, these examples suggest that statesmanship involves balancing decisive action with ethical restraint and institutional stewardship. Hegseth’s speech therefore provides a contemporary case for examining whether modern leadership rhetoric aligns with these historical traditions of American statesmanship or represents a departure from them.

A Christian worldview adds another analytical lens to this discussion of statesmanship and the ethical exercise of power. Scripture recognizes that governing authorities may legitimately wield coercive force to protect the public. The Apostle Paul writes that rulers “do not bear the sword for no reason,” but are servants of justice tasked with restraining wrongdoing (Romans 13:4, New International Version). Within Christian political thought, this passage has long been interpreted as affirming the legitimacy of government authority in matters of defense and law enforcement. War, therefore, is not inherently immoral when undertaken in circumstances of extreme self-defense or protection of the innocent. At the same time, the biblical tradition places significant emphasis on humility and restraint when exercising power. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus warns, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52, New International Version). The statement occurs when Peter attempts to defend Jesus during the arrest in Gethsemane by striking a Roman soldier with a sword. Jesus rebukes the act and restores the wounded man, emphasizing that reliance on violence carries profound moral consequences. The significance of this passage is not that all uses of force are illegitimate, but that violence pursued without restraint or moral discipline ultimately produces destructive consequences for both individuals and institutions.

Applied to contemporary leadership rhetoric, this biblical warning introduces a moral tension when leaders frame military power primarily through domination or unrestrained lethality. Statements in Secretary Hegseth’s speech emphasizing the need to “untie the hands of our warfighters” and unleash “overwhelming and punishing violence” highlight the aggressive exercise of state power (Hegseth, 2025). While decisive military force may sometimes be necessary in warfare, Christian ethics cautions that leaders must exercise such authority with prudence, humility, and moral accountability. The warning that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword” reminds political leaders that power exercised without ethical restraint risks undermining the very institutions and moral legitimacy it seeks to defend. This biblical perspective reinforces the statesmanship traditions reflected in the earlier examples of Franklin, Taft, and Jefferson. Franklin emphasized the cultivation of civic virtue and moderation among leaders and citizens. Taft strengthened institutional legitimacy through procedural reform and disciplined governance. Jefferson recognized the moral burden attached to difficult political decisions and reportedly experienced personal unease when expanding executive authority through the Louisiana Purchase (Ellis, 1997). Each example illustrates that leadership within a republic requires not only the ability to act decisively but also the wisdom to recognize the ethical weight of that power. From this perspective, the biblical warning concerning the sword serves as a reminder that legitimate authority must always be balanced by humility, moral restraint, and responsibility for the consequences of political decisions. In the context of contemporary national security policy, the challenge of statesmanship lies not merely in demonstrating strength but in exercising power in ways that sustain institutional legitimacy, moral credibility, and public trust.

References

Associated Press. (2025, October 8). U.S. Navy sinks more than 100 cartel “go-fast boats” in Caribbean crackdown on drug trafficking. Associated Press.

Chesney, R. (2012). Military-intelligence convergence and the law of the Title 10/Title 50 debate.  Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 5(2), 539–629.

Ellis, J. J. (1997).  American sphinx: The character of Thomas Jefferson. Vintage Books.

Franklin, B. (2004).  The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Yale University Press. (Original work published 1791)

Hegseth, P. (2025, September 30). Address to general and flag officers at Quantico, Virginia.

O’Connell, M. E. (2010).  The international law of drone warfare. American Society of International Law.

Post, R. (2012).  The Taft Court: Making law for a divided nation. Cambridge University Press.

Walzer, M. (1973). Political action: The problem of dirty hands.  Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2(2), 160–180.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work published 1978)

Read Less

Nathen Lowis

In Proverbs 28:10 (NLT), the scripture reads,  "Those who lead good people along an evil path will fall into their own trap, but the honest will inherit good things". By now, most of us have heard the principle of “to whom much is given, much is expected.” I believe no job embodies that more than the President of the United States. Having the honor to hold that title comes with responsibility, strong leadership qualities, and selflessness. These qualities are summed up as statesmanship. Negative is always easier to investigate than positive unfortunately, so with that being said I present to you a look into January 6th.

The insurrection of January 6th will always be remembered as a day of infamy in American History. That morning started with President Trump delivering a speech at the “Save America” rally in Washington, DC. According to the president’s schedule, after speaking at the rally, he would then head to a meeting to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election. During this speech Trump stated that,  “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Statements made similar to this are what led many to accuse President Trump of inciting the insurrection that would soon follow the rally. “It is also important to recognize that the context in which Trump spoke was very different from that of his previous speeches. Before, Trump was speaking in a bid to become President, as President or to stay as President, and he was talking in general terms about enemies, the need to defeat them, and the need for people to support him in defeating them. By contrast, the 6th January speech was oriented to preventing a very specific event—the certification of the 2020 election result by Congress. Moreover, it required direct action by followers, not just support for Trump himself” (Ntontis et al, 2024). While it was never proven by the court of law, many believe the actions that followed Trump’s speech led to the violence on Capitol Hill. “Even before Trump finished his address shortly after 1:00 pm, and just as the joint session of Congress was being convened, a mob of his supporters—including members of right-wing extremist organizations, such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters, as well as self-identified adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory—pushed through fences at the western perimeter of the Capitol grounds, forcing Capitol Police officers to retreat to additional barricades closer to the building” (Duignan, 2026). The mob would soon grow to well over 1,000, with the rioters eventually succeeding in breaching the Capital building. During the chaos, members of Congress had to be rushed to safety, law enforcement were beaten by the angry protesters, and eight people tragically lost their lives. 

“Statesmanship is exceptional leadership characterized by vision, courage, compassion, effectiveness, and civility. It does not expect perfection but assumes competence and demands excellence. Vision is the ability to see beyond the rush of daily events and to develop and execute a long term strategy. Courage has been called “grace under pressure” and demands steps that may be unpopular, with benefits that are not immediately evident” (Shaw, n.d.). Even though it was never proven that he initiated the riot, his leadership ability is very questionable. According to Fishcher’s description, I believe that Trump would be classified as a charismatic leader. It has been throughout his presidency, the ability to motivate people (Whether negatively or positive). Fischer (2010) states the issue with this leadership is “in becoming “larger than life”, is that they can also become immune to accountability and therefore can become prone to abusing power.” January 6th proved that not all statesmanship is good statesmanship.

References

Duignan, B. (2026, February 2).  January 6 U.S. Capitol Attack. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/January-6-U-S-Capitol-attack

Fischer, Kahlib, "A Biblical-Covenantal Perspective on Organizational Behavior & Leadership" (2010). Faculty Publications and Presentations. 523. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/523 

Ntontis, E., Jurstakova, K., Neville, F., Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2024). A warrant for violence? An analysis of Donald Trump’s speech before the US Capitol attack.  The British Journal of Social Psychology.,  63(1), 3–19.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12679Links to an external site.

Shaw, J. (n.d.).  What a statesman would do | Paul Simon Public Policy Institute | SIU. Retrieved March 12, 2026, from https://paulsimoninstitute.siu.edu/intiatives/what-a-statesman-would-do.php