Running Head: Transgender Students

Running Head Transgender1transgender6transgenderstudents Nameins

Based on Price (2008), leaders deserve a “moral exception” in society where their rule-breaking and promise-breaking actions are justified since they have power over the locals that they lead. Price outlines assumptions that make leaders exceptional in society, such as serving group ends, adhering to common leader norms, serving only the groups they deem valuable, and knowing how to use their power. Relating to Donald Trump, these assumptions suggest that he exemplifies an exceptional leader acting in favor of specific groups while ignoring others, exemplified by his decision to ban transgender individuals from the military.

Price also discusses the traits that make leaders support their actions, including traits that followers perceive as justified. Many supporters praised Trump’s move, considering it aligned with societal norms or beliefs, while minority groups like the LGBTQ community viewed it as discriminatory. Trump’s supporters, often influenced by his leadership personality, continue to support him, believing his actions are justified. Although explicit support among followers is not always evident, some individuals publicly endorse his decisions, which in turn garnered support from the courts and turned policies into law.

Price (2008) also explores psychological and ethical egoism, stating that leaders justify their actions based on selfish desires or interests. Psychological egoism posits that all humans are inherently selfish, thus leader actions are justified when serving personal interests. Ethical egoism suggests that actions are justified if they promote leaders’ self-interests rather than selfish desires explicitly. Supporters might argue Trump’s decision-making was motivated by desires to restore traditional societal norms, intertwining personal interests with broader political goals.

An article on narcissism and unethical leadership further characterizes Trump's leadership as narcissistic—focused solely on his interests—evidenced by insensitivity and lack of regard for others’ feelings, such as his transgender military ban. Price notes that traits like low interpersonal sensitivity and excessive inquisitiveness, which Trump exhibits, influence his actions and ethical decision-making. His direct approach and questioning attitude led to policies that disregarded the rights and feelings of transgender individuals, reflecting a pattern of unethical leadership rooted in narcissism.

Traits and virtues in leadership are descriptive and do not predict behavior, but supporters often support leaders for traits like assertiveness or decisiveness. Trump’s traits negatively influence his ethical standards, especially when his traits promote insensitivity and disregard for marginalized groups. Conversely, some traits, such as determination, may align with certain ethical norms; however, in Trump’s case, these traits contributed to ethically problematic decisions.

Kleptocracy, a form of corrupt governance where leaders use power for personal gain, is linked to the behaviors of kleptocratic leaders in the U.S., such as policy favors for wealthy elites through tax cuts and nepotism, exemplified by appointing family members to government positions. Such actions demonstrate the misuse of power to benefit a select few and undermine democratic principles. The decision to ban transgender service members is interpreted by critics as a kleptocratic act—using military policy to satisfy political or personal interests—rather than an ethical or democratic decision.

Legislation and elections under kleptocratic influence often serve the leaders’ self-interest, manipulating democratic processes to entrench power and wealth. For example, the justification for the transgender ban was purportedly made after consultations with military generals, but critics argue it was primarily driven by personal bias and political motives, reflecting kleptocratic tendencies. These actions violate core democratic ethics, which emphasize fairness, justice, and respect for individual rights, making kleptocracy incompatible with ethical leadership.

Paper For Above instruction

Leadership ethics, especially within the context of contemporary political figures like Donald Trump, reveal complex intersections between personal traits, societal perceptions, and governance models. Theories like Price’s (2008) framing of leaders deserving moral exceptions shed light on how certain leaders justify rule-breaking through the mechanisms of power and societal norms. Trump’s leadership exemplifies this as he manipulated societal norms and partisan support to implement policies detrimental to marginalized communities, notably the transgender community.

Price’s assumptions about leaders—serving group ends, adhering to norms, prioritizing valuable groups, and knowing how to wield power—are evident in Trump’s actions. His decision to ban transgender individuals from the military aligns with the norm of serving perceived societal interests, despite conflicting with ethical considerations of individual rights. Supporters’ backing of such policies is often rooted in shared societal norms and perceptions, which are reinforced by Trump’s leadership persona and traits, as well as by the support of like-minded followers who see his actions as justified.

The psychological and ethical egoism described by Price further clarify the motivations behind political figures’ actions. Trump’s supporters might argue that his policies serve the national interest, but critics see them as acts driven by selfish interests—evident in policies favoring corporations or the wealthy, such as tax cuts and nepotism. This behavior underscores the prevalence of kleptocracy within the U.S. political system, where leaders manipulate democratic institutions for personal and elite gain.

The concept of kleptocracy demonstrates how power can be abused under the guise of democratic legitimacy. Actions such as passing legislation benefiting the wealthy or manipulating electoral outcomes reveal a practice where governance serves personal interests rather than public good. In the case of the transgender military ban, the decision’s justification under military advice is viewed skeptically, suggesting it is a kleptocratic use of military power to enforce partisan ideals rather than a reflection of ethical leadership or national interest.

In contrast to ethical leadership grounded in principles of justice, fairness, and respect for individual rights, kleptocratic leadership undermines democracy and fosters corruption. Leaders engaging in kleptocracy often use legislation, elections, and policy decisions to entrench power and wealth—actions that are fundamentally at odds with democratic norms and ethical standards. Such governance models highlight how corruption and self-interest can distort the foundational principles of leadership, leading to policies that harm marginalized groups and weaken institutional integrity.

Overall, the analysis of Trump’s leadership behaviors through the lenses of Price’s (2008) theories and kleptocratic dynamics underscores the importance of ethical standards in governance. It also emphasizes the risks associated with leaders who prioritize personal gain and group interests over societal well-being. Promoting accountability, transparency, and adherence to ethical norms is crucial in counteracting kleptocratic tendencies and ensuring leadership genuinely serves the public interest.

References

• Price, J. (2008). The moral limits of leadership. Journal of Ethics, 12(4), 233-246.
• Pew Research Center. (2017). U.S. image suffers as publics around the world question Trump’s leadership. Wike, R., Stokes, B., Poushter, J., & Fetterolf, J.
• Johnson, L. (2019). Narcissism and leadership ethics. Ethical Perspectives, 26(2), 84-92.
• Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown Publishing Group.
• Kaufman, B. (2016). The ethics of leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 11-22.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
• Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. Vintage.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Maiese, M. (2017). Democracy, ethics, and the public sphere. Routledge.