“Total loyalty is possible only when fidelity is emptied of all concrete content, from which changes of mind might naturally arise.” Hannah Arendt
“”Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.” Mark Twain
“Speaking truth to power is actually a form of loyalty”. Richard Haass
“The secret of a good life is to have the right loyalties and held them in the right scale of values.” Norman Thomas
I have no idea why, but my wife has given me unwavering support and commitment for 55 years in spite of all of the times I tested her tolerance with my idiosyncratic behaviors. That is not to say she was blindly obedient and unquestionably allegiant to every hairbrained idea that I proposed on all too frequent occasions. Her loyalty has been a huge asset in my life. In a previous post, I described situations in which winning was losing. In this post, I will explore ways in which loyalty can become a liability.
Hannah Arendt suggested that total loyalty is possible only when fidelity is emptied of all concrete content. My understanding of what she meant is that total loyalty is detached from specific elements that might trigger changing one’s mind or challenging an idea that makes no sense. It’s about staying the course even when the conditions and circumstances shift. Loyalty, however, in my mind, means to stay committed to a destination or vision that transcends the concrete elements of a relationship AND to remain anchored to core principles and underlying values. It is more about commitment and less about obedience. My wife has been able to do the first without succumbing to the latter. Congress has not.
Mark Twain was known as a comedic author, but he was also a serious critic who used humor to express his offense to all forms of narrow-mindedness and prejudice. My understanding of his quote on petrified opinion is that he wanted to expose the dangers of dogma and unquestioning adherence to rigid ideologies. The quote suggests that being “loyal” to opinions that are no longer relevant impedes progress and freedom. Even ideas that are “set in stone” should invite critical examination. Twain argues that blind loyalty to old beliefs does nothing to advance civilization or to liberate individuals. He believed that progress requires openness, critical thinking, flexibility and the willingness to ask hard questions. In short, he believed blind loyalty is counterproductive. In the modern context, the quote remains relevant when discussing issues like social justice, climate change, political change or innovation.
Indeed, while loyalty is often associated with unwavering devotion, it can paradoxically morph from a valued quality to a blinding force that hinders intellectual growth and impedes progress. This post will explore how loyalty, if left unchecked, can lead to intellectual stagnation and resistance to change. Let’s start by turning to some literature that brings alive the idea that loyalty can run amuck.
One of the most striking examples of loyalty’s potential to obstruct open-mindedness can be found in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. In this totalitarian society, the citizens’ unwavering loyalty to the Party and its enigmatic leader, Big Brother, is absolute. This blind devotion allows the Party to maintain complete control, suppressing any form of dissent or independent thought. Winston Smith, the protagonist, observes, “Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” This quote encapsulates the dangers of unquestioning loyalty, as it can lead to a state of intellectual dormancy where individuals become mere automatons, incapable of critical thinking or challenging the prevailing ideology.
Another compelling illustration of loyalty’s potential pitfalls can be found in Shakespeare’s tragic play, Julius Caesar. Brutus, a noble Roman senator, is torn between his loyalty to his friend Caesar and his loyalty to the Roman Republic. Despite his deep affection for Caesar, Brutus ultimately joins the conspiracy to assassinate him, believing that Caesar’s ambition poses a threat to the Republic. Brutus’s unwavering loyalty to his idealized vision of Rome, however, blinds him to the true motives of the other conspirators, leading to disastrous consequences. As Mark Antony astutely observes in his famous eulogy, “Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honorable man.” This irony highlights how blind loyalty can cloud judgment and lead to actions that are contrary to one’s true intentions.
In Harper Lee’s classic novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, the theme of loyalty is explored through the lens of racial prejudice in the American South. Scout Finch, the young protagonist, witnesses the destructive consequences of blind loyalty to tradition and social norms when her father, Atticus, defends a black man falsely accused of rape. The community’s unwavering adherence to racial segregation and its refusal to challenge the status quo lead to a gross miscarriage of justice. Atticus’s courageous decision to stand up for what is right, despite facing ostracism and threats, demonstrates the importance of critical thinking and the courage to challenge prevailing beliefs, even when it means going against the grain of loyalty.
These examples from literature serve as cautionary tales, reminding us that blind loyalty can lead to moral compromise and tragic consequences. To prevent loyalty from becoming a liability, we must cultivate critical thinking skills, challenge our own assumptions, and remain open to new perspectives. Only then can we harness the true power of loyalty, using it to build bridges instead of walls, and to foster a more just and inclusive society.
So what is the true power of loyalty? Where does it’s real value lie?
Richard Haass, an American author and diplomat who was president of the Council on Foreign Relations from 2003 to 2023, suggests that speaking truth to power is the real test of loyalty. I have admired his work and his writing for many years because he tells it like he sees it. His statements are typically direct, honest, bold – and not necessarily aligned with the party line. His quote at the beginning of this post, “Speaking truth to power is actually a form of loyalty,” comes from deep experience. He was extremely loyal to the Presidents he served in both parties BECAUSE he was not afraid to speak the truth as he saw it. Oh, how we need his voice and wisdom and courage now.
Norman Thomas, a political activist and candidate for President in six consecutive elections between 1928 and 1948, said that “The secret of a good life is to have the right loyalties and hold them in the right scale of values.” Here is the tricky part. How do we decide what the “right” loyalties and scales are? Who gets to make that determination? To me, the right loyalties are to science, evidence, the environment, social and economic justice, and freedom. And my idea of a scale to assess the “good life” might look like this:
5.0. Purpose
4.0: Principles
3.0: Priorities
2.0: Privilege
1.0: Profits/Power
It seems to me that a purpose driven life offers the most meaningful path to what I would consider a good life. Our ability to align all of our efforts with our stated principles also seems to be a good measure. Having a clear set of priorities not only helps us stay true to our values, but also helps us focus our efforts on the “right things.” When we drop below level 3, we are more likely to engage in pretentious behaviors and to pretend that we deserve special advantages. Seeing privilege as the true measure of a good life requires a great deal of justification. At level 1, the good life is measured by how much money, material possessions, and profit maximization we have managed to acquire and achieve. Making these distinctions is challenging because one person’s purpose might be another person’s poison. For example, if my vision (purpose) is to dominate the world, then, by definition, lots of people have to be subordinated and marginalized. If my values (principles) are winning at any cost and maintaining an image of infallibility, then, by definition, there have to be a lot of losers and other people taking the blame for my behaviors.
If you are a reader of this blog, I’m sure you have surmised where I’m going with this post. We are now living under a government that operates on a completed inverted scale. Trump and his tech bros/oligarchs are primarily driven by power and profits. Congress is motivated by maintaining their privilege and positioning, the priorities are to further enrich the wealthy and to unencumber corporations and capitalists, principles and purpose are convoluted to support profits for the powerful. These inverted loyalties are a liability to the original purpose of our nation. So what does all this mean on an individual level? For each of us?
Personally, my purpose is to help others achieve their dreams and aspirations – as long as I support those dreams. How am I doing on that purpose? My friends and family are probably the best people to ask. I might be vulnerable to delusion. Some of my key principles are interdependence, integrity, innovation, and justice. My priorities are family, daily practices (reading, writing, meditation, music, health) and my local projects with several not-for-profits. Again, the people I care about and work with are in the best position to assess how well I am allocating my time to my priorities.
Two points: First, we can’t determine how loyal we are until we define for ourselves what a “good life” looks like. And, second, we need to understand that each person has a different definition of purpose, principles, and priorities. It is up to each of us to decide how much we are willing to invest in and to risk standing up for what we say is most important to us. What is it worth to re-invert and reinvent the scale?
The questions we might want to ask ourselves are: 1) How loyal am I to my stated purpose, principles, and priorities? 2) How committed am I to advocating for and supporting others who share my purpose, principles, and priorities? 3) How willing am I to speak truth to those in power who violate shared purpose, principles, and priorities? 4) What scale do I use to measure how well I’m leading my life? 5) To what extent am I being blindly obedient to those in power who are operating at levels one and two in order to protect my privileges and profits? 6) To what and to whom am I truly loyal? 7) Are my loyalties an asset or a liability for my own growth and for the advancement of civilization?
I’m writing this post on January 20, a day in which we are honoring both the life of Martin Luther King and the peaceful transfer of power to Donald Trump. What a juxtoposition. King was the exemplar of a purpose and principle driven life. Trump is the epitomy of a profit and power driven life. Only time will tell which life will have the most lasting consequences.
I have had the privilege of working with many people and organizations whose primary loyalties are to the vision, mission and values of the organization in which they work AND are aligned with my own aspirations. I’m hoping all of us can become more supportive of and committed to the purposes, principles and priorities we believe in. I’m hoping fewer of us will resign ourselves to blind obedience and allegiance to those in power who do not share our values. And I’m hoping defiance will ultimately replace deference. Finally, I’m hoping enough of us are sufficiently loyal to the vision and values on which this country was formed to find a new way forward. May it be so.
Also published on Medium.
Well done my friend! Thank you