God’s Chosen or Deal Maker?
​
Trump’s Hybrid Leadership Explored
with help from Shakespeare and Whitehead

As Donald Trump is inaugurated, some, especially evangelical Christians, see him as anointed by God to assume leadership of America, not unlike a divine king. Others, however, view him as elected on the basis of his merits—his capacities for strategic alliances and pragmatic rule—rather than by divine right.

I suspect that Trump sees himself in both ways—as someone destined, perhaps by God, to rule, yet also as a supremely modern transactional leader.

This duality in perception reveals a tension in modern leadership styles: the authoritarian or the pragmatist. Shakespeare's Richard II helps illuminate this polarity and assists in understanding the kind of leadership to which Trump is drawn: a hybrid of the two types.
In Richard II, Shakespeare portrays a monarch who initially rules with an air of divine authority, grounded in the belief that kingship is ordained by God. Richard's downfall, however, comes as he fails to balance this divine legitimacy with the pragmatic demands of governance. His successor, Henry Bolingbroke, embodies the opposite style, ascending to power through strategic alliances, practicality, and a keen sense of political calculation. The contrast between these characters underscores a broader tension between sacral authority and pragmatic leadership, one that resonates deeply in contemporary politics.

Trump's leadership mirrors aspects of both figures. Like Richard II, he sometimes evokes a sense of divine ordination, particularly among his evangelical supporters who see him as a vessel for God's plan. Yet, his style also reflects Bolingbroke's transactional pragmatism—favoring deals, negotiations, and strategic maneuvering over ideology or tradition. This synthesis of divine right and transactional leadership offers insight into Trump's appeal and the polarized reactions he provokes.

Trump's self-image likely oscillates between these two poles. On one hand, he presents himself as a protector of Christian values and American identity, echoing the divine right narrative. On the other, he relishes the role of a dealmaker, leveraging power through alliances and negotiations. This hybrid approach resonates with a segment of the electorate seeking both moral certainty and practical outcomes.

The tension between authoritarian and pragmatic leadership is not new, but Trump's embodiment of both styles in the modern era raises questions about the future of political authority. Does leadership grounded in divine sanction risk alienating pragmatic voters? Conversely, does transactional governance erode the moral foundations of leadership? Shakespeare's exploration of these themes in Richard II provides a lens through which we can examine Trump's presidency and the broader dynamics of contemporary political power.
​
Ultimately, Trump's leadership style reflects an ongoing negotiation between these competing visions of authority. By straddling the line between divine legitimacy and pragmatic rule, he both captivates and polarizes—a phenomenon that invites continued reflection on the nature of leadership in the modern world.

From a process philosophical perspective, this duality in leadership can be seen as part of a broader metaphysical tension between order and novelty. Process thought, as articulated by Alfred North Whitehead, emphasizes the dynamic interplay of permanence and change, structure and improvisation. Trump's leadership mirrors this dynamic, combining a longing for established moral certainties with the flexibility required for adaptive, pragmatic decision-making.

Whitehead's concept of "concrescence"—the process by which multiple influences are integrated into a unified experience—can illuminate Trump's approach. He synthesizes diverse influences, appealing to religious traditionalists while also embodying modern capitalist pragmatism. Yet this synthesis is inherently unstable, as it depends on continually balancing contrasting tendencies.

Moreover, process philosophy suggests that leadership is always relational, shaped by the interactions between leaders and their constituencies. Trump's leadership can thus be seen as an emergent property of his interactions with supporters who project onto him both divine purpose and practical effectiveness. His style underscores the relational nature of authority, highlighting the role of perception and shared values in sustaining power.
​
Finally, process thought invites us to see leadership as part of an ongoing creative advance into novelty. Trump's presidency reflects the uncertainties and tensions of an evolving society, grappling with competing desires for stability and transformation. Whether his approach represents a sustainable model or a transitional phase remains an open question, one that calls for continued reflection within the framework of process philosophy.

The Infallible King: Richard II

He is "a leader who believes himself infallible, who rewards his favorites with cushy titles, who doles out retribution rooted in old grudges, and whose signature move is to accuse his opponents of treason," and he sees his power as ordained by God. I am talking, of course, about Richard II, the fourteenth-century English king and the subject of Shakespeare's play by that name. The play explores the abuse of power, the nature of tyranny, and the requirements of succession. The words in quotation marks are from the Shakespeare Unlimited podcast by the Folger Shakespeare Library, December 3, 2024.

Bolingbroke’s Challenge to Authority

Richard II's primary adversary in the play, and in the history from which the play is drawn, is Henry Bolingbroke, who later becomes King Henry IV. Bolingbroke is Richard's cousin and the son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. Initially, Bolingbroke challenges Richard's authority after being exiled for disputing with Thomas Mowbray, but his conflict with Richard deepens when Richard seizes Bolingbroke’s inheritance following John of Gaunt’s death.

The Rebellion and Deposition

Feeling wronged and supported by discontented nobles, Bolingbroke returns from exile, gathers forces, and successfully deposes Richard, claiming the throne as Henry IV. This act sets the stage for themes of legitimacy, rebellion, and the fragility of divine authority, raising questions about whether Bolingbroke’s rise represents justice or usurpation.

Bolingbroke as a Modern Ruler

Bolingbroke is often considered one of the first "modern" rulers in British history, balancing pragmatism and flexibility with a willingness to break established norms. However, his transactional approach to power also risks fostering instability and distrust, as it prioritizes immediate gains over long-term stability, potentially leaving a legacy of uncertainty and contested legitimacy. in sharp contrast to Richard’s medieval vision of kingship rooted in divine right. Bolingbroke's leadership reflects pragmatism, flexibility, and a transactional approach to power—qualities that anticipate later developments in governance.

A Shift from Divine Right to Practical Legitimacy

Rather than relying on ceremony and inherited status, Bolingbroke builds alliances, mobilizes popular support, and uses military strength to solidify his claim to the throne. His rise illustrates a shift from sacred authority to practical legitimacy, grounded in performance and action rather than divine ordination.

Challenging Medieval Absolutism

By overthrowing Richard, Bolingbroke also challenges the medieval ideal of kingship, introducing both the promise of reform and the peril of instability. While his actions pave the way for more flexible and pragmatic governance, they also raise concerns about the unintended consequences of undermining established authority, including political fragmentation and ongoing challenges to legitimacy. as absolute and unassailable. His actions imply that rulers must be accountable and that power can be contested—ideas that prefigure constitutional governance and democratic accountability.

The Prototype of the Modern Statesman

Bolingbroke’s success highlights his ability to navigate shifting alliances and political realities, making him a prototype of the modern statesman who thrives through adaptability rather than entitlement. At the same time, his ambition and willingness to seize power underscore the risks of instability and the fragility of authority when tradition is overturned.
Leadership in a World of ChangeFrom a process perspective, Bolingbroke represents the fluidity of leadership in a world defined by relationships and change. While Richard clings to a static vision of kingship, Bolingbroke adapts to evolving circumstances, illustrating the dynamic nature of power.

The Uncertainty of Transition

Yet his reign also reveals the uncertainty that accompanies such transitions. While Richard’s static vision of leadership provided stability and a sense of divine order, Bolingbroke’s rise highlights the fragility and adaptability required in modern governance. This tension underscores both the strengths and vulnerabilities inherent in contrasting approaches to power.. By claiming the throne through rebellion, Bolingbroke inherits not just power but also vulnerability—a reminder that leadership, like life itself, is always in process and subject to redefinition.

A Process-Relational Analysis:

A process-relational perspective emphasizes the absence of any single "right" way of being a leader. Instead, it views leadership as an evolving and context-dependent practice. Richard’s reliance on divine authority and rigid structures highlights the stability and order such approaches can offer, but it also reveals their inability to adapt to changing circumstances. Conversely, Bolingbroke’s pragmatism and responsiveness enable him to seize power and address immediate challenges, yet his methods introduce instability and undermine long-standing traditions.

This perspective suggests that leadership must balance continuity and change, tradition and innovation. Both Richard and Bolingbroke exemplify strengths and weaknesses inherent in different styles of governance, showing that effective leadership often requires flexibility rather than adherence to a fixed model. Leadership, viewed through this lens, is less about embodying a singular ideal and more about navigating complexities, relationships, and evolving conditions.

Contemporary Applications in Geopolitics

This process-relational view of leadership resonates strongly with contemporary geopolitics. Modern leaders face dynamic challenges, including globalization, shifting alliances, and technological disruption. Nations and leaders must balance tradition and innovation, stability and change, much like Richard and Bolingbroke.

For example, authoritarian regimes often emphasize stability and continuity, similar to Richard’s divine right model, offering security but risking rigidity and resistance to reform. Meanwhile, democratic and populist leaders reflect Bolingbroke’s adaptability and pragmatism, responding quickly to crises but sometimes creating instability or undermining long-term institutions.

Blending Leadership Styles: An Unwitting Experiment

Leaders like Donald Trump may represent an unwitting experiment in combining both forms of leadership. Trump’s reliance on symbolic authority, media spectacle, and personal branding evokes Richard’s emphasis on ceremony and image. At the same time, his transactional approach, focus on disruption, and willingness to challenge norms mirror Bolingbroke’s pragmatic style.

This hybrid approach highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of blending these models. It demonstrates how adaptability and showmanship can energize supporters and disrupt stagnant systems but also risks undermining institutions, creating polarization, and fostering instability. Trump’s leadership underscores the complexities of modern governance, revealing the tensions between continuity and change, tradition and innovation, and stability and disruption.