Diego Molina Ochoa

Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
For the sake of Confidants:

Hamlet is the quintessential case study of everything that can go wrong with
leadership: our titular hero, driven by a desire for justice and revenge, delves into a
disastrous quest filled with lies and treachery. Indeed, few characters in the play
forego utilizing devious strategies like spying, murder and manipulation, and as a
result by the end of the final act, the theatre has been painted by the blood of almost
all the players, of which Hamlet is only one of many victims and murderers. Had
sensible thoughts and open communication prevailed over passionate soliloquys
and poisoned blades, then perhaps such a tragedy could have been prevented, but
alas calm and collected diplomacy an engaging drama does not make. But in this
story of princes and spies, there is one character in particular that contrasts
strikingly with the rest of its extravagant cast: Horatio, Hamlet’s friend and only true
ally throughout the tragedy.
Loyal Horatio! Honorable Horatio! While the rest of the cast descends into
madness both false and real, plotting murder and revenge through sword and
poison, Horatio is defined simply and honestly by his friendship to Hamlet, and
supports our protagonist thoughtfully and without any secret plot. It is an honesty
not seen elsewhere in the play, which may explain why, when the curtain falls,
honest Horatio is one of the only remaining characters left standing. There must be
some significance to his role in this play, something that sets him apart from the
stooges and minions that meet their end throughout the play’s acts, beyond the
mere role of being a foil to the passionate and spontaneous Hamlet. As the closest
person to our tragic hero, what power did Horatio hold?
This archetype that Horatio takes one is far from unique in fiction: It seems
that authors enjoy pairing their heroes with allies that balance out the whims and
passions of the protagonist. Go as far back as Philoctetes and you will see
Neoptolemus, whose morals and honesty serves as a counter to his leader’s
Odysseus’ trickery as they deal with the wounded Philoctetes. In the classic Spanish
novel Don Quixote, we have the titular’s madman’s squire Sancho Panza, who keeps
Don Quixote’s madness in check with his skepticism and realism. A more
contemporary example can be found in the Lord of the Rings, the simple gardener
Samwise Gamgee helping Frodo Baggins bear the huge burden of carrying the One
Ring, and in doing so becomes instrumental in destroying one of the greatest evils in
their world. But this archetype is not just a creation of fiction and fantasy, and one
does not have to look far to find such companions in history. Look at William
Seward, Abraham Lincoln’s vice president, whose counsel towards a group of
captured southern messengers may have prevented a two front war. Or Vaycheslav
Molotov, Joseph Stalin’s protégé, one of the many underlings Stalin had to help
maintain his power, and in doing so ensure a bloody and terrifying reign. Clearly,
powerful people rarely stand alone, and leaders are surrounded by those with the
means and skills needed to ensure whatever needs to be done is done. Advisors,
councilors, allies, friends: however you wish to call them, it is critical that the role of
such confidants, and what responsibilities they themselves carry, is understood.
Diego Molina Ochoa
Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
But what exactly makes a confidant? It is a complex question, with various
levels of answers. Be it in a dictatorship or democracy, leadership is never a solo act:
the sheer demand of administration and bureaucracy requires a veritable army of
personnel to manage, and for good reasons. I recall when I was training in
emergency management we were put into a simulated disaster event: the sudden
rush of data and information was bewildering, but the moment our incident
command system, the standardized administrative setup used for any disaster, was
set up, it was as if a calm settled into to situation, with everyone knowing exactly
what to do, who to talk to, and how to act as efficiently as possible. As my captain
once told me “We need to get organized, so that we can actually get shit done”. For
all the hate bureaucracy gets, there is no doubt that it can make leading much easier
and effective.
So leadership becomes something like an ecological web, the leader only one
part of the situation, and their effectiveness dependent on many others. But like a
natural ecosystem, some members have more significance than others, the same
way certain keystone species hold together critical parts of the network. Of course
you need scribes and attendants as much as you need secretaries of states and
ministers of health. But in terms of confidants, there is a stark contrast between the
intern that makes the photocopies of todays agenda and the advisor that helps craft
that agenda in the first place. What then separates the intern to the councilor in the
eyes of the leader? Proximity is a simple one: obviously the people closer to the
leader, both physically and temporally, will have more opportunities to advise them.
Rank is a common option, with those higher up in the hierarchy having more said in
matters. But when it comes to confidants, rank isn’t always the most important
factor: Horatio certainly does not stand very close to Prince Hamlet in terms of rank,
but is the only one whom Hamlet chooses to fully trust. Many leaders will often turn
to those farther down the chain of command for advice: the team I was involved
with for emergency management was extremely small and had a minor role, yet the
commander of the entire organization often asked our captain for advise, because he
knew her well and recognized her experience. In fact, some leaders choose to find
confidants completely divorced from the typical administrative bureaucracy; is
there anyone who hasn’t asked their mother or father for advise on things they
honestly would have little experience in?
Clearly the role of a confidant transcends the typical structure of leadership,
a powerful direct line that can hold surprising sway in the actions of a leader. And
with that power comes significant responsibility, for the words and actions of a
confidant will have direct consequences on those of the leader themself. Much like
good leaders need to be thoughtful and ethical, and a democratic public thoughtful
and aware of their rights and responsibilities, so too must a confidant be thoughtful
and moral in how they advise leaders. A good leader needs good confidants and
councilors. This is not new thinking, with writers like Francis Bacon and Machiavelli
having advised leaders themselves on what to look in a councilor, and how to treat
their council. Morals and wisdom tend to be common themes, as well as ensuring
adequate levels of respect towards authority. But while they offer leaders advise on
Diego Molina Ochoa
Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
what traits councilors should have, they give the councilors little advice on how they
themselves should act. The fact that Bacon’s and Machiavelli’s writing is meant for
leaders themselves might explain this bias, but the role and responsibilities of
confidants is important to consider, given the power they could have on the actions
of leaders. What I would like to do is to offer some advice to confidants, on what
might be good things to consider when offering counsel and how best to support
leaders. This will involved several factors: the critical role of information sharing
confidants have, the importance of persuasion when it comes to being a confidant,
the role confidants have in ensuring leaders are thoughtful and promote
thoughtfulness, and finally how the personal beliefs of a confidant and their
relationship with the political context play out.

It does not take a sharp eye to recognize the ironic tragedy in Hamlet that plays out
in the first few scenes: when Horatio sees the specter of the old dead king, he
decides that the best course of action is to bring it to the attention of Hamlet,
trusting that Hamlet will know the best course of action. Hamlet of course
investigates further, learns of his father’s alleged assassination, and we all know the
bloody consequences of that. Horatio could not have known the results of his
actions, but the simple act of sharing some information with his friend, despite his
best intentions, led to serious unforeseen consequences. It shows how a small seed
of information and grow into something massive.
The sharing of knowledge is perhaps the most fundamental of
responsibilities a confidant has, and likely one of the most important. No matter
how much power or control a leader has, they are as limited in their knowledge as
the rest of us. No leader exists that knows everything, and, until we finally decide to
bend our knee to the inevitable supreme knowledge of omniscient AI and worship
them as mechanical gods, no leader ever will. But information is necessary, in order
to make sound judgments and correct course adjustments, and so leaders constantly
feed themselves with the information they want, and on occasion with the
information they need. But information is a two way street: every source of
information assumes that there is someone actually giving that information.
Confidants, therefore, act like the senses of leaders, bringing to light the
information that the leader needs the same way the eyes give form to reality. It is
with that information that leaders can make decisions and plans, and it is without it
that leaders are blind, stumbling around with only rough assumptions and gut
instincts to guide their actions. There is immense power in this, confidants giving
their leader the ability to see far and wide, consider various viewpoints, and
ultimately act on the reality that they perceive. However, much like how our eyes
can be tricked by optical illusions, so too can information become distorted and
confused. This can sometimes be done malevolently, by so-called confidants with
ulterior motives, but I believe that it is most commonly done accidentally, like a
game of telephone in which the original message has become distorted beyond
comprehension. Given the weight that the information a confidant gives could carry,
there must be much thought given to what sort of information is given. It all comes
Diego Molina Ochoa
Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
down to the three steps in information gathering: receiving information, analyzing
information, and ultimately sharing information.
Information is like fish in the ocean: unless you are very lucky, good
information will rarely just jump into your lap. To find information, you need to
actively search for it, and there are many options for how to get it. Do you use a fine
tuned fishing rod and juicy bait to catch choice bits of data, cast a wide net and
gather as much information as you can, or chuck a good stick of dynamite into the
metaphorical ocean of knowledge and blow information clear into the sky.
Metaphors aside, how one searches for information is almost as important as the
information itself, because the means influence the ends. Highly intensive research
can deliver excellent information, but takes time and may not present all the
information you need. Large-scale studies and questions can deliver huge amounts
of data, especially nowadays with the Internet offering all of the knowledge in the
world and more. But too much information can be just as bad as too little, because
for every good piece of information there could be dozens of contradictory
statements, sensationalist pieces, and straight up lies that must be sifted through.
Given how demanding information seeking can be, it is not surprising that
many would choose to chuck the metaphorical dynamite into the metaphorical
water. Torture, threats, spying and blackmail avoid a great deal of the effort needed
for ethical information seeking, and can seem very attractive especially if one’s
leaders does not necessarily condemn such practices. But such actions can prove
disastrous on several layers: fast information is not necessarily accurate, and one
could severely distort the truth through fear. There are also the ramifications of
engaging in such information seeking strategies: future acts of seeking information
may be hindered by such unethical choices, and can severely damage not only your
own reputation, but that of the leader themselves. We see the consequences of such
actions in Hamlet: all the spies King Claudius sends after Hamlet end up dead, and
with Hamlet even more distrusting.
No matter how ill gotten ones information is, it is useless without properly
analyzing it. One might think that raw data is all a confidant needs to give to their
leader, to let them sort things out. But this is dangerous in many ways, foremost of
which is that there is a huge difference with regards to raw data and understanding
information. A leader might simply not have the familiarity their confidant has when
it comes to the data at hand: a graph that beautifully describes the progression of
climate change or tables describing statistics on vaccinations and resistance can
make perfect sense to an expert in that field, but could be utter gibberish to a leader
who does not have the experience needed to fully understand it. There is also the
danger of misinterpreting information: in Philoctetes, Odysseus interprets the
words of the Oracle as saying that he needed to steal Hercules’s bow from
Philoctetes. I wonder if, had Neoptolemus intervened and helped understand what
the Oracle said, they could have come to understand that their true goal should be to
bring Philoctetes back into the fold with them. Clearly, a confidant must analyze the
data themselves, and bring out the true information within. This also includes
Diego Molina Ochoa
Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
determining whether the information is trustworthy in the first place, and what sort
of additional information seeking is necessary.
Regardless of how you get the information and how much you analyze it,
ultimately it must come to the table of the leader. This is the critical point where the
power of the confidant comes into play, and the risk of ulterior motives is at its
highest. There is first and foremost a selection process of what you actually want to
give to the leader. Do you give them only the most important bits of information to
save time and effort? How many details must you give before you start wasting
people’s time? There is a value to brevity, but it is critical that you share enough
information so that decision making can actually proceed effectively. Then there is
the ever-present threat of manipulating information: this does not necessarily mean
lying outright, a dangerous action that could destroy your position as a confidant.
Bending the truth or only telling part of the truth can seem very attractive,
especially if it helps buffer bad news or draw a leader’s attention to certain details
that are of particular interest to you. But this can have severe consequences: Mao
Zedong’s advisors certainly bended the truth while describing the successes of the
cultural revolution to their glorious leader, and because of that bent truth millions
starved. Clearly if one hopes to enact long-term change, truth must be available, no
matter how harsh. How easy it is for a confidant to share the truth depends a great
deal on how much mutual trust exists and the political context, i.e. whether the
confidant expects to be shot as the messenger. More on trust later on.
Finally, a most attractive option at times is to simply not tell the leader
anything at all. This could make sense for minute details that a leader might not
need to worry about, but even more serious information could seem best kept in the
dark. One could argue that, had Horatio kept the information of the ghost out of
Hamlet’s hands, that a great deal of suffering could have been avoided. This is
however a treacherous path to take, because it comes with the assumption that
one’s leader is blindly ignorant to things. A leader, particularly a good leader, will
have various avenues for gathering information, and whatever you are trying to hide
will most likely come to light eventually. What if the leader learns of the information
and believes you had been trying to deceive them? And what if the other source of
information is not as impartial as you could be, and actively manipulates data to
their own ends? Silence can be comfortable, but that does not mean a leader is deaf
and that others are mute.

Going hand in hand with information seeking is the critical skill of

persuasion. Leaders must be well versed in the many ways by which persuasion is
conducted, indeed, unless there exists some ulterior motive, it is most likely that a
confidant will be one of those many persuaded individuals. After all, someone who
supports a leader but who doesn’t at least somewhat agree with the ideals and goals
outlined by their leadership will struggle with severe cognitive dissonance
throughout their work. But for all the persuasion a leader does, there comes
moments where it is imperative for they themselves to be persuaded about
something.
Diego Molina Ochoa
Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
The moment a confidant decides that they must convince a leader of
something signifies a divergence in the ideals and goals of the confidant and their
leader. If the two agreed on everything, then there would never have to be any such
discussions or attempts at persuasion, but differences in opinion are inevitable in
any situation. Take Odysseus and Neoptolemus: when the two set off to find
Philoctetes and his fabled bow, Odysseus had successfully convinced his cohort that
the only solution to getting the bow was to trick Philoctetes and steal it from right
underneath him. Persuaded, Neoptolemus successfully uses subterfuge to acquire
the bow, but upon returning to Odysseus guilt and shame takes their toll, and
Neoptolemus has a change of heart. The dissent takes center stage; the once
persuaded actor now in the position of persuader, while Odysseus himself tries to
convince Neoptolemus to stay on the path of trickery.
Such contrasting ideals and back and forth persuasion may be a critical part
of what separates a confidant from your typical administrative staff. In any
administration, be it in a despotic society or even in a democracy, there tends to be
an underlying assumption of unity. After all, everyone is in it together, so there
shouldn’t be any need for debates, only action. Dissent, therefore, is something that
is seen as dangerous for an organization, regardless of how well meant such dissent
could be. In such a situation, there are typically only two options for anyone who
does not agree with what is going on: keep quite and carry on, or quit. And I believe
such an attitude is not only a symptom of wide gaps in hierarchy: how many of our
senators have turned a blind eye towards heinous acts and statements for the sake
of maintaining party unity. But as stated before, a confidant is not necessarily bound
to the same code that keeps an administration in check. Therein lies a defining
factor of advising a leader: anyone can agree with what a leader says, but only a
close confidant could have the ability to argue against what has been said. It shows
the strange power dynamic between a leader and their confidant, the interplay of
opinions and ideals that define their relationship: they need not have to agree on
everything all the time. And it is here that the skills of persuasion of a confidant
come into play.
There are a few things that should be considered when trying to persuade a
leader, one being how much do you want to invest in the act of persuasion.
Persuasion takes time and energy, of course, but there is also the variable of risk
involved. Hopefully, that risk does not include the possibility of being shipped out to
a gulag for dissent, but whenever one attempts to change someone else’s mind,
there is always the danger of things escalating and one party becoming insulted or
injured, which could put strain on the relationship between confidant and leader. So
some questions must be answered first then. Firstly, how significant is this act of
persuasion really? Are you offering alternative means to conducting a study, or
trying to convince a leader that their aggressive stance on religious extremists may
only aggravate the violence? There are degrees of severity to concepts, and that
must be taken into consideration for determining how to approach the act of
persuasion. Clearly, some things aren’t as earthshattering as others: you don’t need
Diego Molina Ochoa
Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
to set up a huge presentation and speech to convince your parents to lend you the
car for the weekend.
From there, one must consider how important whatever you are trying to
convince on is to the leader. This is a critical step, and demands deep, personal
understanding of the ideals of a leader. There are some things that people pay little
attention to, and other things that are at the center of their morals and ideals. The
closer to their heart someone holds an ideal, the more likely they will strongly
oppose any attempt at persuasion. You don’t have to look hard in our current day
political landscape to find examples of such strongly held beliefs: even mention
abortion or gay rights and you will spark a firestorm of debates. Once you know how
hard someone might push back on your attempt at persuasion, comes the final
question: how important is it that you convince them? Is this a minor quibble you
have of a certain policy or goal? Or do you feel severe reservations towards the
course the leader wishes to take, and feel that your ideals cannot hope to coincide
with the actions that will be take? What is really being asked here is how far you are
willing to go for the sake of persuading a leader, a question that could determine the
fate of a leader-confidant relationship. For some things, it might be reasonable to
just shrug it off and stay the course, limiting attempts at persuasion to not risk an
important relationship over a minor issue. Such trade offs are necessary in any
relationship, but it is important to not have ones ideals perpetually trampled over.
Sometimes it is necessary to go the extra mile for the sake of persuasion, to stand by
what you believe and try and convince a leader of what is right.
In the event that persuasion is necessary, then it must be done correctly and
ethically. As a confidant you typically have an inherent advantage when it comes to
persuading a leader, the built in ethos that comes with whatever relationship you
have with them. Thus it is even more important that the means by which you
persuade are ethical and sound, to make best use of the opportunity that is available
to you. Here is where the information seeking that was so important earlier finds its
home: the information you have gathered, through methodical and ethical means,
should be the bread and butter of any act of persuasion. A good leader will recognize
sound information, and in a perfect world that should be enough, but sometimes
ideals and dogmas can restrain action like old scars bound tissue. In that case, you
should draw upon your personal understanding of the leader. Recall why you chose
to help them in the first place, and remind them of the ideals that first defined them.
Such clarification may not always work, as ideals and goals can change, but
hopefully, if the attempt is genuine, common ground can be found.

The exchange of information between a confidant and a leader, the back and
forth persuasions and discussions that the two are involved in, and the common
ground that both find throughout their partnership: all of these play a part in the
curious influence that a confidant can have, along with the effect a leader may have
on the confidant in turn. A particularly vibrant example of such exchange is the
relationship between the mad knight Don Quixote and his servant turned squire
Sancho Panza. Saavedra, the author of “Don Quixote” clearly intended for the two to
Diego Molina Ochoa
Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
reflect the other’s traits and ideals: Don Quixote is passionate and fanciful in his
idealism, whereas simple Sancho is an everyman, grounded in reality as he follows
his companion on his many aventuras. But an important part of the tale revolves on
how each one has had their identity changed by the other: Don Quixote’s madness is
tempered and grounded by Sancho Panzo, a Sanchification of his identity, while
Sancho Panza’s Quixotization allows him to share in the odd adventures and flights
of fancy. There is a dynamic interplay here, in the personality and ideals of both
characters.
When it comes to leadership, a confidant is a critical source of such changes
in thinking. There are probably hundreds of poems and essays that describe the
cruel isolation of princes and leaders with flowery language, and there is some truth
in the matter. Society and the hierarchal nature of administrations typically enclose
leadership within a tight bubble, with the assumption that a leader knows
everything they need to know, has everything necessary to pass down the needed
orders and get things done. I believe there is an assumption that, especially when
things are going well, leadership and democracy just sort of happens without any
thought. There is a mindless trust in governance, as Tocqueville mentions in his
essay, where people, having grown accustomed to democracy and wealth, become
complacent in how they consider leadership. It’s only when the economy starts to
fail or a war breaks out that people become indignant, crying out for why the
government is so bad at its job.
The fact remains: leadership is not supposed to be easy. It requires extreme
thoughtfulness and awareness, the understanding of what it means to be a good
leader and the ability to act in such a way. There is a lot of thinking involved in good
leadership, which is why a bad leader is typically one that speaks or acts without
any thought. A leader must always be questioning what to do next, consider what’s
the best course of action, and in doing so must think of what sort of leader their
ideals describe. In the same way that democracy demands a thoughtful public that is
aware of their rights and responsibilities, so that they elect good representative,
participate in politics, and maintain the sort of governance they actually want, a
good administration requires a thoughtful leader, one who is able to adapt and
change their perception to best meet the needs of the situation, and can understand
what needs to be fixed and what missions must be undertaken.
Much in the same way the public can become complacent in their political
activity when things are going well, so too can leaders become thoughtless and lose
sight of what needs to be done. Blind ambition, overconfidence, and lack of
information can all lead to a leader that acts without the care and thought that is
required for good leadership. Such factors can stem from the leader themselves, but
ultimately bad leadership is dependent on a bad administration to keep it afloat, a
network of followers and goons that maintain whatever delusions have gripped the
leader. When China was in the midst of the Great Leap Forward, the countless
advisors and ministers to Mao Zedong carefully crafted an image of a nation
experiencing the height of productivity, while behind the veil millions starved. Given
such delusions, how else could one describe a leader like Mao as nothing but blind?
Diego Molina Ochoa
Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
Sadly, administrative culture, so heavily dependent on maintaining prestige and
standing and not rocking the boat, tends to reinforce such behavior.
A confidant may be the breath of fresh air that leaders need to break free of
whatever complacency has obscured their vision. There is something to be said of
the value of a new perspective, and a confidant could offer a viewpoint far removed
from the trenches carved into an administration. When foggy contentment is the
general atmosphere, a confidant can pull back the curtains and show the underlying
issues that still exist. This means that a confidant can offer the most when they are
able to represent viewpoints that differ significantly from the standards in an
administration. This leads to diverse sources of information as well as reinforcing
new ways of thinking for a leader. After all, a leader is as limited in their perception
and biases as anyone else; a confidant can expand their horizons and help them
think outside the box. When microbiologist and retired UNAIDS executive director
Peter Piot joined a team of epidemiologists as they entered Zaire to study the first
ever epidemic of Ebola, they brought with them an arsenal of epidemiological
expertise and equipment. But when they arrived to the center of the epidemic, it was
thanks to the local missionaries, who had been fighting the epidemic alone for
weeks already, that his team was able to understand the true nature of the disease.
The experiences and insights the nuns offered proved critical in Piot’s efforts at
discovering, tracking, and ultimately pushing back Ebola.
The power of new perspectives and active thinking cannot be
underestimated. This idea of two people getting together and offering new ways of
thinking through conversation and debate may seem innocent and simple, but it is a
vital driving force in any healthy government or institution. The most
groundbreaking ideas and actions aren’t born from a cadre of complacent
administrators who all agree on the same thing, but rather from the meeting of
diverse minds who openly share different beliefs and together come to some
understanding. Think to the founding fathers of the US, the delegates and
representatives who joined together to establish the foundations of a new nation.
The declaration of independence and constitution weren’t just conjured out of thin
air by a circle of homogenous thinkers who all thought the same way: I can only
imagine the passionate, heated debates and conversations that occurred day and
night as these thinkers (a critical trait for any leader) refined their beliefs in rights
and equality that would define a most dramatic experiment in governance and
democracy.
As a confidant, inspiring new ways of thinking is one of the greatest things
they can offer a leader, but it must be done mindfully. For one, thoughtfulness is a
two-way street: lecturing someone about your own beliefs can feel great, but it is
just another form of sharing information, doing little to inspire novel thoughts. One
must approach with the willingness to consider alternative viewpoints, to find
middle ground and arrive there together, lest you risk insulting someone or turning
a blind eye to different ideas. After all, this is not persuasion, although the two can
somewhat overlap: you aren’t trying to bring someone to your side of a debate, but
generate mutual understanding, offering the opportunity to create something new.
Diego Molina Ochoa
Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
Accepted conditions can become critical problems that need to be resolved,
complacent stagnancy turning into thoughtful progress.

By now, you have probably noticed a critical factor with regards to being a
confidant: for any act as a confidant to be successful, there must be a great deal of
trust. Returning to the island of Philoctetes, when Neoptolemus has his change of
heart and returns the bow of Hercules to its rightful owner, he tries to convince
Philoctetes to join him and Odysseus on their quest, to return to their critical
destiny at Troy. But the damage has already been done: while Philoctetes eventually
accepts that Neoptolemus does not carry cruel intentions, the distrust that
Odysseus’ trickery has only deepened the scars Philoctetes bears, and becomes deaf
to whatever Neoptolemus counsels. So deep is the lack of trust that it requires a
literal deux-ex-machina to resolve the conundrum.
As a confidant, there is much at stake with regards to how much a leader
trusts you, and it is critical that whatever trust exists is not tarnished. History and
popular culture does not play in the favor of confidants unfortunately: it seems that
every King and Queen in fiction has a shifty vizier or advisor that whispers honeyed
words and golden promises until the time is ripe and they plunge a dagger into their
leader’s back. And there is little doubt that whatever trust Julius Caesar had for his
protégé Brutus evaporated away on the day of Caesar’s assassination. People are
slow to trust, leaders I fear even more so. That’s why the position a confidant has is
so important, as merely being a confidant implies some inherent degree of trust.
This makes it important that the trust a leader has in their confidant does not go to
waste.
Everything a confidant does and says must take into consideration how their
action will impact how much a leader trusts them, because changes in trust have
long-term consequences in any relationship. Information must be gathered ethically
and completely, and then offered openly and without any bias. Keeping secrets, or
worse, offering lies, can seem very attractive in order to achieve short term goals,
but are absolutely disastrous when considering the long term implications such
actions carry with regards to trust and respect. Speaking freely is the only way a
confidant can ensure a long-lasting exchange with their leader; otherwise doubt will
fill in the gaps a confidant refuses to fill in him or herself. Likewise, when one
engages in unethical methods of acquiring information, it simultaneously taints ones
identity, which can further damage whatever trust others hold of you. Persuasion
must also be managed respectfully and carefully, lest it appears like manipulation.
No one likes being manipulated, and when someone pushes an agenda aggressively,
possibly by using underhanded methods of persuasion and coercion, it can put
strain on a relationship and damage any progress that can be made in the future.
Clearly, to get to the thoughtfulness that a confidant can create, a confidant must
reach a point where they are deserving of trust and respect.
Having a leader trust you is obviously necessary if anyone wants to get a
word in. But this is a two sided game: just as a leader trusts and confidant, a
confidant must also trust the leader! Who in the right mind would even consider
Diego Molina Ochoa
Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
sharing data that undermines someone’s claims when the last person who did got
purged from the governing party? Trying to persuade a leader to change course on
certain policies can be daunting when dissenting opinions are a one-way ticket to an
internment camp. And someone might be hesitant of trying to promote new ways of
thinking when such alternative philosophies are met with book burning and
censorship. Anyone in a position of authority can seem daunting, even if a confidant
comes from outside the typical administrative hierarchy. If it seems that the risks of
offering honest opinions and facts are too high, then it can only be expected that a
confidant will decide it might be best to avoid such risks and just go with the flow,
becoming another part of the administration that supports such leadership.
There is a political context that must be considered when in comes to the
actions of a confidant. I previously mentioned how confidants can go above and
beyond some of the typical structures of an administration, but they are not immune
to the political climate that a leader inspires. A despotic leader breeds a despotic
regime, which leads to despotic culture defined by lies, fear, and distrust. Such a
political climate is anathema to the ideals that a confidant must maintain, in order to
create the necessary dialogue that is at the core of their relationship with a leader.
One could argue that, as a confidant, there exists the assumption that they agree
with the methods and cruel ideals of a despot. While this may be true, recall that
being a confidant requires not just being able to agree with a leader, but also
disagree and have ones own viewpoints that leads to thoughtfulness. In the despotic
regimes of Soviet Russia and Communist China, with their regular purges of staff
and advisors, it can be easy to see how, without the possibility for dissent and
alternative thinking, the role of a confidant quickly evaporate.
It’s not hard to see that the role of a confidant is one that is inherently
democratic in nature: things like trust, respect, honest information and open
dialogue are at the heart of any democracy. A confidant helps develop
thoughtfulness, something that despotic regimes actively stamp down, and healthy
democratic institutions depend on. Simply for the sake of being, a confidant must
define their beliefs and ideals around democracy, and act accordingly. They should
choose leaders who recognize the value of such democratic values, and help them
both maintain those values in the institutions they lead, and expand them to foster
continuous growth that will continue forward into the future. Choosing to support
democracy in such a matter is possibly the most important role a confidant could
have.

At the end of Hamlet, Horatio, kneeling besides his dear companion as the
poison begins to take its toll, considers following the prince into the grave by
drinking what was left of the poisoned wine, a thought Hamlet quickly rejects so
that his friend could live on. Such self-sacrificial thoughts are a constant risk for
confidants, especially those who have grown very close to the ideals of a leader and
want to see their goals succeed. In such cases it might seem natural to give up
personal missions and dreams in order to be a part of something “bigger”, to
dedicate ones life to ensuring the success of a leader. But a confidant should not
Diego Molina Ochoa
Honors 230 A
Roger Soder
December 13, 2017
have to be eternally bound to whatever a leader does, indeed, doing so threatens the
very individuality and alternative thinking that makes confidants so valuable in the
first place. Everyone has their own ambitions and dreams, and just because
someone wants to support a companion in their own quest does not mean that they
should give up on their own. Their own ambition can lead to great things, and they
themselves could become leaders of their own cause. Ideally, this does not change
the relationship that has grown, and each becomes a confidant to the other, sharing
ideas and information for the betterment of each other.
Let’s hear it for the advisors, the confidants, and the friends who support
every great leader. Let’s recognize how hard it is to lead democratically and morally,
and how sharing a bit of advice or sound words of wisdom can be just what is
needed to give a leader the drive needed to maintain a just institution. Let’s praise
those leaders that welcome and cherish thoughtful allies and companions, and reject
those who are too deafened by pride and thoughtlessness to consider any other
thoughts beyond their own. And finally, let’s built communities that inspire people
to share their thoughts openly and respectfully, and trust others to offer sound
advice and respect, so that people become more thoughtful and generate new ways
of thinking together.