Big Shoes, Small Courage

Abraham Lincoln famously assembled a “team of rivals,” filling his cabinet with some of the most capable—and, at times, contentious—figures in American politics. He understood that strong leadership is not about surrounding oneself with agreement, but with challenge. Debate sharpened decisions. Dissent strengthened outcomes. It was a model rooted in confidence, not insecurity.

Contrast that with Donald Trump’s governing style, which more closely resembles a team of sycophants. His cabinet has often appeared less like a body of independent thinkers and more like a chorus of affirmation—officials unwilling to question directives, defend institutional norms, or even acknowledge contradictions with long-held party principles. Loyalty, in this environment, seems to outweigh competence.

The result is a culture where even the most absurd gestures can become litmus tests of devotion. Reports that Trump purchased matching shoes for his cabinet—only for them not to fit—serve as an almost too-perfect metaphor. Imagine a room full of powerful officials, each one willing to shuffle around in ill-fitting, oversized shoes rather than risk displeasing the man at the top. It’s comical on its face, but troubling in implication.

Because governance is not theater. The stakes are too high for silent compliance. A functioning democracy requires leaders who are willing to push back, to offer hard truths, and to prioritize the country over personal allegiance.

Lincoln knew that. He built strength through disagreement. Today, we should ask whether we are witnessing the opposite—and what that means for the decisions being made on behalf of the American people.