The Accountability Void (part 1): The Collapse of Credibility

What Happens When Leaders Are Never Wrong?

Leadership runs on credibility. Not charisma. Not volume. Not even results alone.

Credibility is what allows people to trust a leader's judgment when outcomes are uncertain, emotions are high, or sacrifice is required. Without credibility, authority may remain—but confidence evaporates. People comply, but they stop believing. They follow, but they no longer trust.

That erosion doesn't happen all at once. It happens when leaders repeatedly show that power matters more than character, and winning matters more than wisdom.

A Contemporary Example: Donald Trump and the Cost of Eroded Credibility

This is where Donald Trump becomes an instructive example—not because he is uniquely flawed, but because his leadership style makes the issue visible.

Over time, Trump has employed a consistent pattern of avoiding accountability: shocking statements followed by deflection, inflammatory posts reframed as jokes, and moral missteps dismissed as persecution—all while dominating attention in ways that make sustained accountability nearly impossible.

Recent examples widely circulated include:

• Trump called Bad Bunny's Super Bowl halftime performance 'un-American'—despite the fact that Bad Bunny is from Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, and Latino culture is woven into the fabric of American identity. The comment dismisses the lived experience of nearly 20% of Americans as somehow foreign to the nation they're part of.

  
  

• Trump called Olympic athlete Hunter Hess a 'real loser,' adding 'it's very hard to root for someone like this. Make America Great Again'—because Hess said in a Milan interview that 'just because I'm wearing the flag doesn't mean I represent everything that's going on in the U.S.' The attack punishes an athlete for exercising the very freedom that defines American democracy: the right to critique, dissent, and pursue better ways.

  
  

• Trump posted an image on Truth Social depicting the Obamas as monkeys in what defenders called a Lion King spoof. But depicting people of African descent as monkeys or apes is a racist practice with a documented history of dehumanization—used for generations to legitimize oppression, violence, and the denial of basic human dignity. Intent doesn't erase impact, and context doesn't erase history.

Whether defended as jokes, memes, or "trolling," the pattern is consistent: provocation followed by deflection, outrage reframed as persecution, and accountability dismissed as overreaction.

When leaders repeatedly refuse to acknowledge moral missteps, they teach people—supporters and critics alike—that character is optional and correction is unnecessary.

That lesson doesn't stay contained.

How Accountability Disappears

The pattern isn't about unpredictability—it's about evasion. When challenged on any of these statements:

• The meaning shifts: "That's not what I meant" or "It was just a joke"

• The context changes: "You're taking it too seriously" or "Everyone does this"

• The criticism is reversed: "This is persecution" or "You're the real problem"

Over time, this creates a credibility crisis. Not because the leader is inconsistent, but because accountability becomes impossible. Yesterday's statement can be disowned. Today's defense can be abandoned tomorrow. There is no stable ground on which to stand and say: "This was wrong, and I take responsibility."

Aristotle taught that character creates predictability—not predictability of outcomes, but of moral orientation. You know how a virtuous leader will approach a problem even if you don't know what decision they'll reach.

When accountability is consistently avoided, that orientation disappears. Followers are left guessing: What matters tod

ay? What will be defended tomorrow? What will be disowned next week?  

That guessing game may generate attention, but it destroys trust.

This is why confidence collapses. Confidence is not the same as agreement. People can disagree with leaders and still trust them—if they believe those leaders are governed by something deeper than impulse.

This is where virtue ethics is illuminating.

The Problem Is Not Failure—It's Immunity

Plato warned that when leaders are shielded from accountability, power ceases to serve the common good and instead becomes self-referential. Over time, truth bends to preserve authority, and the leader becomes the measure of right and wrong.

In classical virtue ethics, accountability is essential to formation. Aristotle understood virtue as something cultivated through correction—habits refined by feedback, consequences, and moral instruction. A person who cannot be corrected cannot grow. A leader who is never accountable eventually becomes untethered from reality.

This is why lack of accountability is not neutral. It actively deforms character.

In the case of Donald Trump, the pattern that concerns many is not simply offensive speech or norm-breaking behavior. Leaders throughout history have stumbled. The deeper issue is the near-total absence of ownership—the consistent refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, apologize meaningfully, or submit to moral correction.

What emerges instead is deflection:

• blame shifted to others

• criticism reframed as persecution

• consequences dismissed as unfair

• outrage weaponized to avoid reflection

From a character standpoint, that pattern is devastating.

One of the clearest indicators of character in leadership is not perfection, but accountability. Leaders who possess moral formation are capable of saying: I was wrong. I didn't know. I need to correct this.

Those statements are not weaknesses, but affirmations of integrity. They signal that a leader is governed by something higher than ego, image, or raw power.

Leaders who rely on volatility lose credibility even when they retain authority. Teams may comply, but they stop trusting. Creativity declines. Dissent disappears. Fear replaces candor.

People don't need leaders who are exciting. They need leaders who are reliable.

Reaping What We Sow

When unaccountable leadership is normalized, it reshapes expectations everywhere. People begin to assume that results excuse behavior, that power negates correction, and that strength means never admitting fault.

Predictable unpredictability creates a culture where stability feels weak, restraint looks naive, accountability seems optional, and confidence is replaced by loyalty tests.

That is not leadership. It is dominance management.

And history—ancient and modern—shows that societies led this way may endure for a season, but they fracture over time.

We've faced these tensions before.

During Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, the concern was not just about personal misconduct but about cultural impact. If the President lies under oath and engages in sexual misconduct without consequence, what message does that send to a generation of young people about integrity, restraint, and accountability?

The worry then was about sexual ethics and truthfulness. The question now is broader: What behaviors does the current president excuse in our society? What patterns of character—or lack thereof—become acceptable when modeled from the highest office?

Leadership character and credibility are never just personal. There are widespread impacts on the whole of society when leadership is not held to higher standards.

When leaders model that accountability is optional, that admission of error is weakness, that power excuses behavior—entire cultures begin to internalize those lessons. Not immediately. Not consciously. But over time, the boundaries shift.

What we tolerate in leaders, we eventually tolerate in ourselves. What we excuse at the top, we normalize throughout.

When we excuse bad leadership—on any side—we do not protect ourselves. We harm ourselves. Unaccountable leadership has helped produce hyper-division, chronic social anxiety, performative outrage, and a sense that our direction is irrecoverable.

The people always pay the price. Not the leaders.

The Question Before Us

This is not merely an assessment of one leader. It's a warning about what we reward.

If we celebrate evasion over accountability, image over character, dominance over trust, we shouldn't be surprised when confidence collapses—not just in leaders, but in leadership itself.

Successful leadership is not measured by how many followers a person has, but by whether those entrusted to them are better off because of how that power was used.

When accountability is optional and poor character is rewarded, what kind of future can we honestly expect? 

[In Part 2, we'll explore what ancient wisdom knew about how character actually forms—and why accountability isn't optional.]