One of the more curious phenomena in our present age is the way that so many people want only one side of fame and publicity. It should be noted at the outset that there is no shame or problem in being ambivalent about fame or being a public person, or about desiring to engage in a certain world without being someone who truly relishes the spotlight and everything that comes with it. A great many people are creative and actively involved in the world as public artists or intellectuals or other sorts of public figures while remaining somewhat shy and awkward people. Still, it has always surprised and irritated me when people want to make provocative statements and at the same time seek to defend themselves from the inevitable comebacks and pushback that they are going to get. A blogger, for example, who tells other people not to give them advice about cats is begging for unwanted advice about cats. Someone who says they are tired of hearing redhead jokes and expresses it is probably going to get a lot of redhead jokes, and so on. If, as one libertarian account I follow on X, one insults about half the United States for its lack of BBQ skills, and then says “Don’t at me,” one can expect people are going to come back with some kind of defense of their own personal or regional cuisine. If we communicate to others, we have to expect that other people are going to have some things to say back to us, and if we want to talk without listening, if we want to present our side of the story without letting other people respond, we are being not only selfish but deeply unwise.

What is the responsibility of being a public figure? Being a public figure, whether one is an openly avowed public intellectual who has something to say about the subjects of importance of the day within the general culture, or whether is a figure involved in some aspect of culture without necessarily having or (less commonly) claiming any particular insight into larger intellectual and moral matters, is deeply involved with being a part of the larger conversation that goes on about what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, what is beautiful, what is ugly, what should be and what should never be. By entering into that conversation, one accepts an implicit contract. Part of that contract is immensely appealing, in that it means that you see yourself as having something to say and wish for other people to listen to it, to read it, and to otherwise be exposed to your thinking, and hopefully be influenced by it. On the other hand, being a public figure also means that one’s own thinking and behavior becomes the subject of public critique, and this is not always an enjoyable thing to undergo. It goes without saying that people can misunderstand and misinterpret what we have to say and what we do, and plenty of evil people are fond of misrepresenting what we say and think and what we are about for their own selfish interests, and may wish to or even seek to inflict harm upon us simply for existing in the public sphere in opposition to them and their folly and wickedness.

In light of such issues, it is little surprise that people may feel somewhat nervous and uncomfortable about entering the world of the public figure. It is far safer to be anonymous or pseudonymous and make one’s contribution without exposing oneself to the slings and arrows of outrageous hostility that can be found when one expresses one’s perspective to those who are not particularly welcoming to it–especially among the intolerant and bigoted left. (To be sure, those who live in such societies as Iran or Palestine will find their lives as iconoclastic and rebellious public figures to be short and brutish from the bigoted and intolerant right, it must be admitted.) Yet at the same time, it is deeply troubling that so many people, especially on the left, seek to gain positions of power while actively seeking to deny others the information as to what they intend on doing if and when they obtain the power they seek, all while seeking to misrepresent the positions of their opponents in the harshest and most extreme form possible. We can only take this as a kind of projection, that parties which seek to gain a stealth victory, often through some sort of fraud, are even more extreme than the way they paint their opponents. If people will not reveal themselves, will not subject themselves to scrutiny or opposition, then they have no place ruling over others. Only those who can take it, and take it gracefully and politely should be in the position to dish it out to others.

Why is this so hard to understand? What is it that makes people think that they can win office without allowing others to know what they want to do–aside from carefully scripted oracular utterances (or word salads) that often mean one thing to the uninitiated and another thing to the party faithful? What is it that makes people think it is alright to demand transparency and accountability while refusing to provide it, and expecting institutions like the media to carry one’s water and defend the biased scale of judgment? Leadership is no place for cowards, and having the bravery to deal with the difficulties it takes to explain oneself to potentially hostile crowds and trying to win over people through conveying one’s thinking process and one’s ideas demonstrates that one has the intestinal fortitude to handle the difficulties that result from leading nations and institutions in our present evil world. People who cannot handle the heat that comes from opposition do not deserve the chance to rule, because they will not be able to change from politicians to statesmen, to be able to see that opponents can serve a valuable function in providing testing for one’s ideas as well as providing the basis for a loyal opposition that may share important ends if not means, and can improve the public reception to one’s efforts at seeking what is best for a nation in the face of danger and difficulty. We have difficulty enough when we have courage and fortitude. Cowards need not apply for leadership in times such as our own.