Leadership and Compassion in Alabama

We truly need leaders who inspire us, pushing us toward improvement. Authentic strength is not about flaunting authority; it’s defined by humility. A truly weak individual is one who feels the need to elevate themselves by diminishing others.

Nowadays, there’s a troubling trend where anger is mistaken for strength and credibility. Frequently, the loudest voice in any discussion is taken as the wisest. Many voters, who may be grappling with uncertainty and fear, lean towards those who promise a show of strength instead of offering real solutions. It’s, well, concerning.

This phenomenon, termed authoritarian attraction by psychologists, describes how people under stress often gravitate towards dominant leaders who freely express anger. These leaders exude confidence even when misguided; for them, admitting fault feels like weakness. To some, this approach might seem like genuine leadership, but it’s often a facade masking deeper anxieties and a desire for control.

Erich Fromm, a prominent social psychologist, observed that an authoritarian character admires authority while simultaneously desiring to exert control over others. It’s a paradox that sheds light on our current political climate, where some seem to crave domination and control.

We’re witnessing this dynamic unfold right in our own state legislature. Alabama’s lawmakers increasingly appear to engage in theatrical displays of anger that target already marginalized communities. Whether targeting LGBTQ+ youth or restricting women’s healthcare choices, the tactics remain all too familiar. Vulnerable groups are often framed as threats, with promises made to restore some form of ‘order.’

This brings up another psychological concept: social dominance orientation (SDO). This describes individuals who believe societal structure thrives when one group reigns over another. Those with high SDO are more prone to support policies and leaders that escalate inequalities based on race, gender, and class.

As researchers Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratt note, social dominance orientation indicates a desire for dominance within a group. In Alabama, we’re witnessing this in real time through laws that reinforce power without addressing real issues. Speeches that aim to divide rather than unite are all too common. Leadership often appears more commanding than guiding.

It’s undeniably easier to control through fear than to govern with compassion. Responding to the public is simpler than cultivating a collaborative atmosphere, but that’s not how it should be.

Alabama doesn’t need showboaters; it needs genuine politicians. The state deserves leaders who wield power responsibly—not to bolster their ego at the cost of others’ dignity. Leadership should focus on progress rather than punishment.

Dwight D. Eisenhower once remarked that leading isn’t about attacking others. It’s an insightful reminder of what true leadership should embody. Abraham Lincoln also emphasized that the essence of governance should stem from responsibility rather than conflict.

Alabama has had leaders like Governor Lureen Wallace, who, although starting as her husband’s successor, emerged as a quiet strength amidst political noise. She focused on mental health, child welfare, and the dignity of the underprivileged. Her impact serves as a lasting reminder that ethical leadership exists.

Similarly, Senator Howell Heflin is remembered for prioritizing honor over personal gain. While he did not transcend politics, his principles were never compromised.

In contrast, the recent rise of those who mistake domination for clarity presents a worrying trend. Their legacies may be loud, but they are unlikely to stand the test of time.

Today, Alabama finds itself at a pivotal juncture. With Governor Kay Ivey’s term nearing its end, the question remains: what type of leaders will take her place?

This isn’t just a rhetorical question—it’s critical. Alabama’s future hinges on deciding whether we want leadership rooted in wisdom and compassion or one that thrives on division and hostility. Should we choose leaders who embody the worst traits, or uphold true Alabama values of unity, humility, and kindness?

Yes, the political landscape has changed significantly. There’s a growing allure to domination and neglect, but the voters are not trapped in anger—not yet.

This psychological struggle, characterized by authoritarian appeal alongside social dominance orientation, positions anger over progress and control over purpose. It creates a cycle where cruelty reigns and decency is dismissed as weakness. Sadly, those who suffer most are often those without power or influence.

We see these effects in laws intended to punish, divisive rhetoric, and a culture that rewards aggression while stifling collaboration.

Yet, we retain choices.

The question is straightforward: do we want leaders to guide us toward positivity, or do we remain trapped in the shadows of hostility and rage?

Alabama has made better choices before, and it has the capacity to do so again. We just need to hope fervently enough to demand change—in ballot boxes, public spaces, and in those quiet moments when courage whispers instead of shouts.

As the late civil rights leader John Lewis profoundly stated, “You are the light. Don’t let anyone dim that.” It’s time to insist on leaders who help us shine, because we shouldn’t remain in darkness.