U NCOMMON V IRTUES #7: L OYALTY

30 JANUARY 1649, LONDON

Cromwell’s soldiers shouted abuse at the monarch walking to his execution.
 
He did his best to remain calm and collected, resigned to his fate, moving with stately dignity.
 
Finding a moment to address the crowd, Charles I gives his final speech –
 
“An unjust sentence that I suffered to take effect, is punished now by an unjust sentence on me.”
 
He finishes his speech, talking about how he departs this world, going from this corruptible realm to an incorruptible realm.
 
Before his head is lain on the execution’s block, the King says to himself, quietly, Charles I says, “Oh, Strafford…”
 
His head comes off in one clean stroke.
 
There is less cheering from the crowd than normal at an execution – the whole scene leaves a stunned sort of quiet among the Londoners.
 
***
 
THE IMPEACHMENT OF STRAFFORD
 
The 1600’s are a notoriously difficult time in England to untangle historically.

We are focused on one very particular thing – Charles I, trying to placate furious enemies, allowed his loyal servant to be executed. They turn out to be implacable, and Charles I is executed not so long afterwards.

But it’s not that straightforward.

It is almost impossible for a historian to give an accurate and neutral accounting of everything that happened – the mix of foreign wars, domestic strife, assassinations, corruption, crime, religious discord, struggles to balance liberty and authority, competing cultural claims, civil wars – the whole era is politically a powder-keg.
 
You almost cannot reflect on this era in a neutral and unbiased fashion; it is nearly impossible to do so. All the leading figures of this age had a mix of praiseworthy and despicable characteristics; there are no clear “good guys” and “bad guys.”
 
Likewise, power changed hands repeatedly – we don’t even have the luxury of a single official narrative, a “lie agreed by all,” to go with.
 
It is hard to place the policies of Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford, in context.
 
You would need to understand the preceding few hundred years of English history to a high degree, the standards of justice and politics of the day, and it is hard to not become ideologically influenced in the process by the various outcomes.
 
I can state three things about Strafford with some confidence; these are the salient details about Strafford –
 
1. He was generally an effective man in an ineffective age. Whether you agree with all his methods or positions, or find many of them disagreeable, he nonetheless was able to suppress piracy, crime, and corruption. He put many effective laws, policies, and reforms into place.
 
2. He was ideologically flexible, more focused on (what seems to me) general competence than any particular obvious ideological stance. This, combined with his general competence, made him many enemies. A man flexible in his governance and politics, he was looking – it seems to me – for general stability and caution in a divisive and chaotic age.
 
3. In his later life, he was undoubtedly a clear and consistent supporter of Charles I. From what motives, we cannot know. But he was committed to Charles I, which is the most salient detail for this Issue.
 
Here is Wikipedia to give you an example of what’s going on –
 
“In the parliament of 1628, Wentworth joined the popular leaders in resistance to arbitrary taxation and imprisonment, but tried to obtain his goal without offending the Crown. He led the movement for a bill which would have secured the liberties of the subject as completely as the Petition of Right afterwards did, but in a manner less offensive to the King. The proposal failed because of both the uncompromising nature of the parliamentary party and Charles’s stubborn refusal to make concessions…”
 
Strafford is sometimes accused of persecuting the Irish; at other times, he is accused of being too pro-Irish by meeting with Catholic leaders and patronizing native Irish arts and cultures.
 
The era, as I said, is confusing to disentangle and make sense of.
 
Again I’ll say, Strafford strikes me as no fanatic on either side of any debate; he is constantly trying to find stable solutions. In the process, he is making enemies.
 
In 1640, Strafford is summoned to London to try to find a moderate path between a stubborn King Charles I and an implacably hostile Parliament.
 
Strafford’s enemies jumped at his appearance in Parliament, and try a variety of legal maneuvers to have the Earl arrested and condemned to death. The cause? Treason.
 
This is, of course, silly. Wikipedia again – “Strafford took full advantage of the weak points in his attack on the evidence collected. Over and over Strafford pointed out the fundamental weakness in the prosecution:  how could it be treason to carry out the King’s wishes?  The lords, his judges, were influenced in his favor. The impeachment failed on 10 April 1641.”
 
Continuing,
 
“The Commons therefore, feeling their victim slipping from their grasp, dropped the impeachment, and brought in and passed a bill of attainder on 13 April… Strafford’s enemies were implacable in their determination that he should die.”
 
***
 
STRAFFORD’S DEATH WARRANT ON CHARLES I’S DESK
 
It would take dozens of pages to adequately explain the relations of the English monarchy with Parliament.
 
It isn’t entirely necessary.
 
Suffice to say, this era sees a waxing and waning of Parliament’s power, and constant struggles between Monarch and Parliament.
 
Charles I obviously believes Strafford’s death warrant to be politically motivated – but many of his advisors are suggesting that signing it would placate Parliament and get on their good side.
 
Strafford is a loyal supporter of Charles, and now Charles is forced between a decision between forcing a crisis with Parliament, or executing one of his most competent and loyal men.
 
A little more Wikipedia on the topic –
 
“Still, Stafford had served Charles with what the king felt was a massive degree of loyalty, and Charles had a serious problem with signing Stafford’s death warrant as a matter of conscience. However, to refuse the will of Parliament on this matter could seriously threaten the monarchy. When he summoned the bishops to ask for their advice, they divided. Some, like the Archbishop of Armagh, argued that the King could not in conscience break his promise to Strafford to spare him; others, like the Bishop of Lincoln, took the contrary view that reasons of State permitted the King to break his word where a private citizen could not.”
 
The King is caught between a veritable rock and hard place – he is being told that Strafford’s death will pave the way to ending the conflict and civil strife in England, whereas his conscience feels deeply that this politically expedient decision would be very wrong indeed…
 
***
 
UNCOMMON VIRTUES #7: LOYALTY
 
Do you think loyalty is commonplace?
 
Frankly, I don’t think it is these days.
 
Back in Chapter 2, Aristotelian Friendship, we talked about friendship based on pleasure , friendship based on advantage , and Aristotle’s “perfect friendship” –friendship based on mutual admiration of each other’s virtue .
 
Aristotle’s notes read as true today as they did in Ancient Greece – calling out from the pages is a warning against believing that transient, temporary, lower forms of friendship are the highest type.
 
Loyalty suffers from a similar problem.
 
It feels pleasurable  to believe we’re loyal, and it’s certainly advantageous  for our friends and colleagues and allies to believe we’re loyal.
 
When something is pleasant to think of oneself as and advantageous to portray oneself as, we should be really skeptical that we actually are that way.
 
Let’s investigate, discover the true nature of our loyalties, and put some guidelines in place so we can benefit from actually being excellent  instead of merely believing we are.
 
***
 
SEVEN KEY POINTS ABOUT LOYALTY
 
1. True loyalty is an exceptionally good thing. The highest levels of mutual loyalty among admirable people unlock the highest degrees of cooperation.
 
2. How loyal are people typically in our day and age? This should be our baseline.
 
3. How do you know you’re truly loyal? I think you only know when there’s advantage in defecting.
 
4. Lots of loyalty to everything = no loyalty to anything.
 
5. Thus, choose your loyalties exceptionally carefully.
 
6. Fast loyalty = not loyalty. Time is needed and routine relationship-building is needed; eat salt together.
 
7. Historic reputational loyalty is of the highest and best kinds – it might not make sense for you, but you should at least strongly consider it.
 
***
 
1. TRUE LOYALTY IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD THING
 
The history books are filled with examples on both sides of this equation – if you seek to go up in the world, and especially if you live in chaotic times, strong mutual loyalties empower moving up, and poor loyalty is the source of much underperformance and downgoing.
 
I could probably 50,000 words on this topic alone – perhaps some day I will.
 
For now, I could point briefly at some historical cases –
 
Tokugawa Ieyasu, the final “Great Unifier” of Japan, had an exceptionally good and mutually loyal relationship with his ninja chief, Hattori Hanzo. Without Hanzo, numerous times Ieyasu would have been killed. Together, they moved to the pinnacle of Japanese history, established a dynasty, and ended the Sengoku era of insane multi-sided civil war.
 
Contrast this against Oda Nobunaga – as talented of a commander and man as you’ll ever meet, except  in his ability to engender and build mutual loyalty.
 
Nobunaga was well on his way to unifying the entirety of Japan when he was betrayed by his general, Akechi Mitsuhide, and killed in a treacherous ambush.
 
Fault lies on both sides of the equation – Nobunaga had publicly embarrassed Mitsuhide, and Mitsuhide’s mother had been killed as a result of a rash move of Nobunaga’s (she had been held hostage by a castle Nobunaga attacked).
 
For his part, no one was interested in flocking to the traitor’s banner – Mitsuhide was hunted down and killed like a dog. Thus, both Nobunaga and Mitsuhide left the world stage, broken and defeated, having failed to achieve their aims.
 
Octavian – later Augustus Caesar – had an extremely close relationship with Agrippa, the military genius and power behind the Roman Principate throne. Their bloodlines would become mixed and reign over the Roman Empire.
 
Contrast this against the various intrigues and fallings-out of the various other contenders to paramountancy in Rome – I need not recount all the various treacheries; disloyalty was the norm. I think it’s no surprise that the final winner was a partnership of two like-minded men who mutually admired and cherished each other.
 
There are more examples than can possibly be counted or numbered – the Byzantine Commander, Belisarius, could probably have re-unified all of Rome if his relationship with Justinian had been more mutually loyal and trusting. Justinian, fearing Belisarius, did not support him adequately.

Rome was never again united.
 
The Carthaginian Senate was famously unsupportive and divided during Hannibal’s very successful aggressive invasion of Italy – Hannibal eventually had to return to Africa after just barely  failing to defeat Rome, and was defeated at Zama by Scipio Africanus.

Shortly afterwards, Carthage was erased from history.
 
Relationships like Ieyasu/Hanzo and Augustus/Agrippa are rare and precious – if you’re able to build such strong ties with another person of admirable character, your odds of mutually achieving all your aims in this world rise – greatly.
 
***
 
2. ASSUME YOUR BASELINE LOYALTY IS SOCIETY’S BASELINE
 
A default assumption that will serve you well in everything  is to assume you are at the baseline level of your society in everything  until repeatedly proven otherwise.
 
It’s a good trick to not overestimate yourself.
 
We won’t go through all the history here – again, we could spend tens of thousands of words exploring this alone – but the bonds of loyalty in the current age are frayed and fractured.
 
This isn’t all  bad. We live in a chaotic time with institutions constantly declining, breaking, and new ones getting built in their place.
 
To briefly touch on this point, across history, what are the default models of loyalty that people tend to adopt?
 
There’s Government/Individual (sovereign/subject in a monarchy, representative/citizen in a republic). John Wayne famously said that he didn’t vote for Kennedy, didn’t like Kennedy, and didn’t want Kennedy to win – but that now that Kennedy was the President, he was our President , and Wayne would support him.
 
That’s obviously gone away. Observe the nasty partisan politics and hatred both sides show for, EX, President Bush and President Obama in recent years. There was a genuine wanting by partisans on both sides to see the “opposing President” fail – not to find compromises, not to have effective governance, not to preserve and grow the strength of the American nation – but to fail. “He’s not my President” – yuck.
 
(Much ado about nothing, but I think both Bush and Obama are underrated. Actually, I believe we’ve had very few truly bad American Presidents in recent history. I mean, compared to what’s possible – travel the world or study history to see how bad a bad executive can be.)
 
Westerners in general tend to laugh at people who are reverent towards the few remaining monarchs in the world – I personally think the respect the Emirati have for their Sheiks, and the respect the Thai have for their King – I think this is a good thing, because it stands to potentially permeate and form a basis for stronger relationships. It doesn’t automatically do so, but it can  – and yet, do some searches for how Westerners regard the Thai tradition towards their monarch. The vast majority of talk on the topic is negative.
 
Parent/child and spouses in marriage is another traditional area where loyalty has traditionally been strong – but observe that both of these are at a low point in Western history. This isn’t all bad – Americans are terrific about rapidly improving and evolving from past generations, and there are indeed some advantages to very liberal divorce laws (the most liberal in all of history, arguably) – but again, we see a fraying of these familial loyalties in our day and age.
 
Finally, the workplace and one’s craftsmanship was another place where loyalty could be formed and grow over time – this is, obviously, again at a low point.
 
And again, I see much good in it. I like our system better than, say, Japan’s. But American employer/employee loyalty is nearly at an all-time low on both sides of that equation.
 
All told, the “easy and obvious” places to form loyalties – government/individual, familial, and employer/employee – these are all at historical lows.
 
This is before getting into the decline of religion, another obvious data point.
 
Where do we learn loyalty, then?
 
Well, I think the answer is somewhat harsh.
 
Following from the above, I’d argue that we actually we don’t learn how to be loyal in the modern West.  Loyalty is at a low point in Western culture right now. It’s uncommon.
 
As such, we should assume our natural levels of loyalty are low.
 
It means we’ll be vigilant and work towards loyalty if we do indeed think it a virtue.
 
***
 
3. YOU ONLY KNOW LOYALTY WHEN THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO DEFECT
 
I contend you can’t truly  know the strength of loyalty unless there’s an opportunity for gain in defecting from your loyalty.
 
Long-term relationship building, eating salt together, this is the foundation of loyalty. We’ll cover it in a moment.
 
But I think we can’t truly know loyalty until we’re asked to suffer or lose on behalf of someone we’ve got a set of duties and allegiances to.
 
To put this in blunt terms, imagine you have skill in marksmanship (if you don’t already).
 
Now imagine one of your close friends or confidants calls you and says, “Please come over to my apartment immediately. Bad people are coming to kill me. I need you to arm yourself with a shotgun and help me defend myself. I can’t explain everything, just get over here immediately.”
 
Assuming your friend wasn’t mentally ill or having some psychotic breakdown – just grant that for this hypothetical – how many people would you say “okay, I’ll be right there” to that friend, without asking for elaboration as to the reasons people are after them ?
 
For me, I can count that number of people on one hand.
 
I think this is near the upper bound of strong loyalty.
 
How many people would you go to support, at risk of your own life, if they did have an extremely good reason or elaboration?
 
I can count that number, additionally, on no more than two hands.
 
I think this is near the lower bound of strong loyalty.
 
How do you know how loyal you are to someone?
 
You can’t know, except in a time when you benefit from not being loyal.
 
The example is a little extreme, but gets at the point. Charles I had an opportunity to be loyal to Strafford, at the risk of personal harm and chaos, or to be disloyal for seeming gain. He chose the latter course.
 
***
 
4/5. CHOOSE YOUR LOYALTIES CAREFULLY
 
Most problems of loyalty come when you are loyalty to conflicting demands and institutions.
 
If you ranked yourself as “maximally loyal” to dozens of people and causes, then – in the moment of truth, in a genuine crisis – you’re very prone to choosing what’s expedient for yourself and then merely rationalizing it.
 
This is of course known throughout history. “Can’t serve two masters,” etc.
 
You must choose your loyalties very carefully.

***
 
6. LOYALTY REQUIRES EATING SALT TOGETHER
 
To be able to be calm and composed in a crisis, and to have mutual trust and genuine loyalty, you need to go through strife and hardship with people you want to be loyal with.
 
I think it’s no surprise at all that so many military veterans build strong friendships and business partnerships together after leaving the service – if you’ve seen a man act selfless, composed, and effectively in combat , you don’t need to know much more than that.
 
Loyalty-building on a smaller-scale means getting the little things right – courtesies, friendships, working to integrate and “get into synch” (as Dalio would say) over time.
 
Similar to what Aristotle says about true friendship, true loyalty cannot emerge immediately. If you want camaraderie and mutual accord, you almost need to undertake difficult projects and plans together. It leads directly to seeing them at their best and their worst, and learning whether you can integrate and truly work together.
 
There can be a desire to pledge yourself to something and be loyal immediately, but that’s just the spark, the start – it takes months and years over and above that to build the highest degree of loyalty.
 
This has many implications – if you’re not so fortunate as to have been raised from childhood with a cadre of really virtuous exceptional people, you should start immediately  seeking out those people.
 
True loyalty – the highest degrees of mutual support – take years to build. If you don’t have people in your life worthy of the highest level of accord and dutiful loyalty, start searching for them immediately.
 
***
 
7. HISTORIC LEVELS OF LOYALTY
 
This brings us to our final point on the topic, something which would be hard to do and might not be practical at all, but should at least be considered.
 
Next chapter we’ll talk about “Generational Focus” – which could certainly aid us in this endeavor – but over and above that, “living in public” and cultivating a public reputation can help immensely with loyalty.
 
We humans are often flawed and short-term in our thinking.
 
One corrective measure can be aiming for having a historical impact in your sphere of the world.
 
My trust and regard for people like Greg Nance is higher, can be higher, and almost must be higher – because I know what stakes Nance is playing for.
 
There is, as I see it, no reason you can’t be at least a minor historical figure – a key figure in the building of your local community, nation, craft, arts, company, family, or whatever domain you choose to operate within.
 
Charles I failed this test – he wanted short-term advantage, peace and security, more than he cared about his reputation across the ages. At best, he would have resolved the crisis with Parliament and kept his crown – but still would have a black mark on his record in letting Strafford die to rapaciously cruel and wanton enemies.
 
Even if Charles's foolish disloyal gamble had worked and not cost him his life – and frankly, disloyalty to one’s genuine supporters is almost always a bad thing in the long term – Charles still would have a permanent black mark on his record.
 
There’s very often easy, obvious, expedient things to do in the short term – that come with horrific costs in the long term.
 
If you’re living an atomized life, trying to gather relatively small amounts of pleasure and advantage only, and thinking not of the broader arc of history – then how can you be trusted?
 
Meanwhile, the person who has committed themself to rising virtuously in this world, and has repeatedly taken public positions as such , starts playing for higher stakes. Your reputation and legacy become entwined with the way you treat others.
 
Say what you will about Larry Ellison, but his relationship with Bob Miner stands as one of the most productive and beautiful throughout the history of tech companies.
 
And likewise, for all their grandeur, the various tech executives who acted expediently towards cofounders and partners and treated them badly in the process, these people have black-marked legacies in this way.
 
Even the smallest amount of playing for legacy, cultivating a reputation you’re truly proud of including in public , and playing for some measure of historical impact – even a small measure – this makes you more capable of loyalty, guiding your hand during harder times, and steadying your path.
 
***
 
RECAP
 
Loyalty is near and dear to my heart.
 
Why isn't it more common? Lack of reflectiveness? Expediency?

It's ironic in a way; I'm reminded of that Ben Franklin expression, where he mused that if scoundrels knew how much more advantageous it was to be virtuous, they’d adopt virtue just for the benefits.
 
Loyalty works as such – it’s virtuous of itself, but ironically, ignoring short term expediency for long-term loyalty also leads to much greater prosperity, much stronger relationships, and a much more thriving life.
 
To recap,
 
1. Extremely high degrees of loyalty are present in many of the most effective people through history, especially those that navigated chaotic times. Disloyalty and distrust caused many otherwise brilliant people to fall short.
 
2. We live in atomized and disloyal times broadly; we should be vigilant and not assume we’re loyal automatically.
 
3. You only know how loyal you or your close colleagues are when a hard decision is needed to preserve it. Ask yourself, for people you feel loyalty towards, how far you’d go for them.
 
4. If you’re supposedly loyal to very many things, you’re not really loyal to anything. You’ll likely just choose expediently.
 
5. Thus, choosing your loyalties carefully is critically important.
 
6. Time is needed to establish loyalty and strong bonds. If you don’t already have people who are exceptionally terrific and who you’d like to spend a lot of your life with, start searching for them immediately.
 
7. Playing for historical stakes and caring about your reputation and legacy can make you more capable of loyalty; consider cultivating this both privately and publicly.
 
***
 
NEXT UP: GENERATIONAL FOCUS
 
Did the world collectively go insane and forget that all of us have parents, grand-parents, and other ancestors who built the world?
 
I think so.
 
Next chapter might be illuminative.