Shepherd or Charlatan Part 3 - Policiing or Pacing

I am sorry for the lack of focus in getting this series completed.

I can't avoid sounding like bragging, but I am helping start a new church, rebuilding a pickup truck, and raising a family, so I am frequently not putting my writing at a very high priority. This is unfortunate because I've had the chance to interact with some wonderful people, but that is all through writing, and I know that if I am an inconsistent flake, then there can't ever really be a relationship that forms.

The kind of relationship where I can say something that matters to them, and vice versa. The kind of interactions where someone might actually look forward to, even if we ultimately disagreed.

So thanks to any who bother to come back and read the rest of the series.

In Parts 1 and 2 I was laying the foundation for, and then providing an example of, the difference between a shepherd and a charlatan. This part of the series will discuss one specific aspect of the difference in how the two behave with respect to leadership style as seen in the contrast between "policing the flock" and "pacing and leading". We end up with yet another binary, because ultimately a leader either reflects the values of the people they lead or they don't.

When a leader shares the values of the people he leads, there will be a natural affinity. The leader won't need to explain or motivate the people on the topics he acts on, because both he and the people already ideologically support what he is doing, and will be looking for opportunities to contribute materially as needed. For a cause that people care about, they may even volunteer their services because they are so dedicated to achieving whatever it is they want to achieve that just achieving the results they desire will be reward enough. Whether such devotees exist or not, in such circumstances the leader will not need to spend a lot of time directing "the herd", but instead protecting it from outsiders who seek to predate on their flock.

This is where the leader who does not share values comes into play. A leader that does not already share the values of a group will not naturally rise to lead it, and will not have a natural affinity for or with the people, but is either be placed there by circumstance, like being hired, or through social manipulation, which is pacing and leading. When a leader does not already align with the values of the people, but is needing to redirect where they put their efforts, he can do this through pacing their existing convictions and emotional state in order for them to recognize him as the one they should follow. He becomes a refinement, an extreme, of whatever values are already held, and since this person appears to be the epitome of such values, having the most dedication and commitment to them, he will synthetically create a dynamic where the others look to him for direction and guidance. After this relationship has been established, he then leads them to where he really wants them to go, which may end up being in a completely different direction than before, complete with compromises and dilution of the values in order to justify what has been done.

A painful example of this "pacing and leading" is seen in politics. On the campaign trail, charlatan politicians promise so many things, they talk at length about their platform and priorities, and try to garner support from the community in their bid for election. Once elected, however, they then proceed to act in a completely different manner than would have been extrapolated from what they claimed, and are often then pressured to explain why there is a disparity. The good politicians already know this is coming, and will have a host of plausible reasons ready to provide at a moments notice, flipping the tables back on the people that elected them, as if they were delusional or ignorant for expecting to get exactly what they wanted.

Shepherds on the other hand rarely ever get elected in such circumstances because instead of making wild promises and inflating their capability, they'll look meek and incompetent compared to the charlatans. Such people only end up being able to get into political positions that confer little rewards for the effort. Where a charlatan will want to get on the city council to get a property re-zoned so they can develop it privately through their own businesses, a shepherd might get into the position of the local sheriff in a rural community. It's a position of importance for that community, but it also demands a lot of work and without a lot of actual power to change the dynamics of the community, because the primary focus is to protect the community from outsiders who want to exploit the community for themselves, whether a thief or a vandal or what have you.

Leaders aligned with their flock will police it to keep it the way is already is. To protect what it already values, to sustain and enforce the existing values the community already has.

Leaders not aligned with their flock will pace and lead it to achieve what they want. To exploit the declared values, to redirect and redefine the existing values the community already has.

Embrace extremists? Embrace those who share your values, and this is most easily demonstrated through action. If a politician claims to support an ideal, look at what actions they have taken, and whether those line up. In churches, for example, this can be seen in the "holier than thou" types. They are like the Pharisees, and will hypocritically apply rules to others in a way which elevates their own standing in the group, but at the same time will prevent anyone else from doing the same to them. Such people are highly critical of others, and extremely sensitive to criticism aimed at them, even if it is accurate.

Shepherds, on the other hand, because they are already aware of the values, and the affinity they have for the people is natural and not synthetic, when they make mistakes there is grace and mercy on hand. This is seen in the "wild west" stories about the "rogue sheriff", who is forced to bend or break rules to achieve their goals. The goals, the values haven't really changed at all, but by nature of circumstance they have been forced to use means they otherwise find undesirable in order to maintain peace and order. When a shepherd is challenged, they do not try to reject the undesirable nature of what they do, but will often explain that such matters are required for the time, and that the alternatives would all be worse for everyone.

The flock may resent the means of the "rogue sheriff", and not be afraid to express it, but there is forgiveness and understanding, and an appreciation that the shepherd is willing to sacrifice themselves on both a physical and psychological level, so that their flock doesn't have to. And when such a sheriff calls out one of the townsfolk on something they are doing wrong, they know to respect and comply with the sheriff, because he has everyone's best interests in mind.

An example of this type of character would be like Kevin Kline's Paden from Silverado. Thrust into a circumstance where he has to choose between being a shepherd for people in the community he has grown to care about, or living the high-life as a charlatan exploiting those very same people to his own benefit. He ultimately chooses to be the shepherd, risk his life, and as a result, ends up in a position of very high standing in the community for actually being an embodiement of the values they cherished.

Charlatans, on the other hand, are like his former friend and rival Cobb, played by Brian Denehhy. He isn't the rogue sheriff that goes to extreme lengths to "clean up the town", but instead is the one who tries to make a deal with the bandits and the outlaws, makes his own peace in a way that benefits him and his supporters, and ends up largely ignoring the values of the people he is supposed to be protecting as sheriff.

Shepherds react without the flock's permission, because they care about the future of the flock. Charlatans need the flock's permission, because otherwise the flock simply wouldn't naturally follow them at all. The actions of the shepherd and charlatan will expose who they think they are, and what they believe the nature of their relationship is, and that takes time and opportunity, requiring patience and observation.

So look at the leaders who have placed themselves, or been placed, in the various groups and social circles you are part of. Keep track of whether their actions are geared towards action on the existing values, or on convincing people that there's more they could be doing, if only they voted/gave money/supporting them. Are the leaders already taking actions which reflect the existing values, or are they hinging their actions pending further support?

Once you've figured it out, hang the charlatans, and give the shepherds a badge and a gun.

In Part 4, I'll discuss how this dynamic is in all social circles, all circumstances where there is a power structure, and how charlatans may look to exploit any possible circumstance to their benefit.