New Paragraph

The downhill slide of true leadership in politics on both sides of the 49th parallel
November 23, 2024

Reposted from Feb. 2020

My July 2017 article “Donald J. Trump: Leader or Boss?” 

https://www.lighthouseleadershipservices.com/post/donald-j-trump-leader-or-boss, expresses my then concerns that the 45th President of the United States of America was to that point not demonstrating the characteristics of leadership whatsoever, but was merely a self-centred “boss”. His apparent lack of honesty; transparency; and decision-making ability (i.e. putting his personal goals and needs over country and party), combined with his bully tactics; passing the blame; falsely taking credit…and so much more, in no way exemplified what true leaders do, but were perfectly good examples of what they shouldn’t do. Well guess what? Nothing has changed. Zilch. In fact it’s gone to hell in a handbasket in my opinion.

 

 He destroyed relationships with many allied nations. Much like his private business modus operandi, he bullies, pressures, lies and tries to bowl over anyone, anything or any country in his way. There’s no give and take or relationship building with nations that have stood strong with the US as trading partners or through international conflict. Unless of course you count his love for the ruthless dictators in Russia and North Korean – then he’s all in. Is that what is best for the American people?

 

The lying has reached a fever-pitch. Trump continues to claim “fake media” on every quote of his ridiculous and immature banter that he doesn’t like. That usually means almost every media outlet except FOX News is conspiring against him.

 

During the lead up to the recent Impeachment Trial of President Trump, he defied subpoenas for Administration witnesses and documents. Why? If Administration employees could take the bible in their right hand, swear an oath to tell the truth and give evidence that would clear him, why not encourage them to testify? If White House documents would help his defense, you’d think he’d be fighting like a rabid dog to have them made public. But he vigorously fought all attempts to produce witnesses and records that might prove his innocence – despite valid requests through established legal processes.

 

But what he did do – with abandon, is vilify American citizens that testified under oath against him in the House Committee Hearings. One, highly respected and longtime US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, was disparaged by Trump live on Twitter she was actually giving evidence under oath. She went on to testify that his Twitter comment was “very intimidating”. Only one so-called “leader” in recent memory would do such a thing.

 

Another witness, highly decorated Lt. Col. Andrew Vindman of the US Army, was publicly chastised by staff from Trump’s White house when he testified regarding his observations and concerns as a national security official. This man gave his life to the US armed services and was actually wounded by an IED while serving in the Iraq. Only one so-called leader in recent memory would allow unwarranted criticism of such a man.

 

A January 19, 2020 “Factchecker” article in the Washington Post, claims that “In 1,095 days, President Trump has made 16,241 false or misleading claims.” Have other Presidents of both political parties made false or misleading claims? No doubt. Sometimes quite innocently and other times in a complete attempt to deceive. But over 16,000 in 3 years? I’m not a historian, but come on.

 

What is even more alarming in my view is how the overwhelming majority – almost to a person, of Republican US Senators supported him throughout the Impeachment Hearing.

 

These aren’t stupid people. They’ve heard the facts. They know there’s damning evidence in documents and potentially from current and former Trump appointees like John Bolton that would sink him. But they put party and personal future election fears ahead of determining the truth and doing what is best for the people of the United States. That is NOT leadership.

 

So what’s happening on our side of the 49th parallel in terms of national leadership these days? Well for those that think I must be a “Liberal” (in reality I’m not) because I don’t believe every word that passes through President Trump’s lips (in reality I believe none), Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is far from a shining example of what leadership should be. I can overlook some of the dumb things he did as a young supply teacher, and his broken campaign promises (they ALL do that) but there’s so much more.

 

The SNC-Lavalin scandal in which the PM conducted a number of “flagrant” attempts to pressure the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to drop criminal charges against a large and politically influential company, led to Trudeau’s expulsion of two Liberal Members of Parliament. It also had the PM apparently lying to the Canadian public about what he did or didn’t do in relation to pressuring his AG. Eventually the Clerk of the Privy Council resigned over the debacle and there was a tremendous loss of trust in PM Trudeau over what was a minimum an ethics violation, and I would suggest was at least at face value a criminal act.


And that wasn’t his first ethics violation. He had already been chastised by the Ethics Commissioner for accepting a vacation on a private island that was owned by a lobby foundation. How a Prime Minister could ever feel that was right or that the truth wouldn’t eventually kick him in the derriere, is completely beyond comprehension.

 

The Vice Admiral Mark Norman prosecution fiasco did nothing to restore any level of confidence in the PM’s transparency and ethical posture. As a dedicated, career public servant and military officer, Norman may not have handled the situation particularly well, but he certainly did not commit a criminal act. He actually did what he felt was best for the country, which is far and above more than we saw out of our PM. Everything around Trudeau’s involvement in the affair stinks. With an election forthcoming, the two-year old criminal case was suddenly dropped mid-stream but not before Norman’s exemplary career was destroyed and his life forever altered.

 

None of this diatribe is partisan on my part. I’m an equal opportunity critic when it comes to the failure of leaders.

 

I am a firm believer that leadership is about doing what is best for those you serve and those you lead. Real leaders inspire others to do and be their very best. Every decision is about putting the people first and personal careers second. When things go bad, true leaders own up and take the hit. When things go good, they pass on the credit and allow the light to shine brightly on those they lead. Anything less is an abject failure of leadership. But alas, such failures have become the norm at the helm of both of our beloved countries.

 

If there is a positive side to this depressing tale of two leaders, it is that Canadians can at least cling to the shred of hope that although their “leader” may not be a paragon of truth, he isn’t anywhere near the compulsive liar that our friends to the south are dealing with in their duly-elected President. He’s somewhere close to 16,000 lies short. However neither pseudo-leader is the rock of honesty, ethical-behaviour and transparency that we all deserve.

Bad immigration practices can become public safety problems

By Chris Lewis • June 6, 2026
Police become the default response to bad immigration policy

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

By Chris Lewis • March 28, 2026
Leadership is inundated with risk, every hour of every day, in all sectors. In policing, legislative authorities and established policy are the ever-present guideposts, but occasionally policy just doesn’t apply. At times someone has to just make a decision to do something, or not, or they will fail the public they serve and the personnel it is their duty to lead. If it goes bad, time to own up, do damage control, learn from it and move forward. It always frightened me when I saw some at the senior executive level in policing think that supervisors and managers operate in a pristine little bubble where nothing should ever go wrong. Then when it did because some supervisor tried their best to make something work for all the right reasons, they wanted to pigeon-hole the person that took the risk. There were times during my own career when executives were not encouraged to take any risk either. In fact, taking risk was career risk in itself. Despite the best of intentions, if it went bad, the one ‘responsible’ be forever labelled as having failed. Even if the gamble went well, the jaundiced eyes from above would still forever look at them as being a potential liability. It became the “Oh, him. He’s the one that...” At times the daily decision making of high-level commanders would be second-guessed by those in the executive suites – some of whom had never really commanded anything. My buddy retired Chief Wayne Frechette used to describe these folks as: “They’ve never been out after dark on company time.” I know this same concept was alive in many other police services. Some at executive levels actually did serve in operational roles at some point but they never took a risk. Somehow, they were fortunate to skate through difficult situations through sheer luck as opposed to good decision-making and never developed any scar tissue along the way. They didn’t learn from failure – they survived by luck. They also were viewed by weak executives above them as being golden because there was never a milli-second of negativity around them. They were Teflon. But those that worked under their “command” (for lack of a better word) had no respect for them. They simply watched them walk around with coffee in hand, never leaving the office or making a decision. It wasn’t leadership, but it did pave the way to stardom from on high, for some. True leaders do take risks at times. Many I worked with and for did it all and did it well. They did so in the best interests of those they served and those they led, because it wasn’t about themselves, but was done in the service of those that placed their trust in them. Policy simply doesn’t fit every situation. It is most often a guide that anticipates most circumstances that employees will face, particularly the more common (high-frequency) ones. But it cannot predict every possible scenario. When that happens in policing, it can occur in very unlikely situations (low-frequency) that are incredibly high-risk. Supervisors cannot say “Sorry folks, the book doesn’t cover this one” and run away crying. They also don’t have time to tell bad guys, “Hey big fella, sit tight. We need to take a pause here and get the whiteboard out so we can have a group-think about how to stop your murderous rampage.” I think that many pseudo-leaders – far too many, are afraid to make risky decisions out of fear that an error will jeopardize their career. Instead, they risk their careers by not making decisions. Or as I like to say: “their fear of career-risk, risks their careers.” This can be fatal in the policing world. When a police supervisor shirks their responsibilities or quivers, sucks their thumb, and prays for the situation to go away, thankfully constables will come forward and do their best to get their teammates through it. Sometimes that ends well and when the supervisor emerges from their fear-induced coma, they will more often than not take credit for the success. But when the situation goes to hell-in-a-handbasket – despite best efforts, the pseudo-leader will document the risk-taking employee and add another bullet-point to their list of things they’ve done to “hold people accountable.” The panel at their next promotional interview will likely hear the false rendition proudly told. I hear examples of this practise from serving police officers across North America on a much too frequent basis. True leaders develop a culture of trust among those they lead that their suggestions and feedback are encouraged and valued. Their confidence that the leader wants their input encourages them to constantly analyze situations and give thought to what policy says and the options available when policy says nothing. That is good for the employee’s development and may save the leader’s hind-end and the continuity of the team on occasion when an employee steps forward in a crisis. Having said that, there will clearly be situations where there isn’t time for the whiteboard, and a decision needs to be made by the responsible “leader.” When it doesn’t work out, the real leader will step forward and be accountable. But when it does go well, the true leader will allow the light to shine on the team they have the honour to lead. In my view, we’re not seeing enough of that in North American policing. We need more genuine leaders at all levels of law enforcement organizations. Developing and promoting real leaders that can manage risk effectively is a must. Anything less fails everyone.

Why Joint Forces Operations Are No Longer Optional

By Chris Lewis • March 26, 2026
They used to be simply a "nice to have."