Everybody Wants to Raid the Barn – Nobody Wants to Plant the Corn

Transactional Leadership

A purely transactional leader focused solely on immediate national interests might seem easier to deal with in some ways. Since their motivations are primarily centred on concrete benefits, negotiations could be more straightforward - other countries would know exactly what they need to offer to secure cooperation. This dynamic would be similar to a business negotiation where both parties are focused on measurable exchanges of value.

However, this apparent simplicity can create significant complications. International relations typically require long-term relationship building, trust, and consideration of complex interconnected issues. A purely transactional approach might overlook important factors like:

The long-term stability of diplomatic relationships that extend beyond immediate deals. For instance, allies who have built trust over decades might be more willing to support each other during crises, even when there's no immediate benefit. The ripple effects of decisions across different areas of cooperation. A deal that seems advantageous in isolation might damage collaboration in other domains like security partnerships, intelligence sharing, or cultural exchange programmes. The role of shared values and principles in maintaining international order. When leaders consider only immediate national gains, they might inadvertently weaken important international norms and institutions that ultimately benefit their own country's long-term interests.

It’s a bit like maintaining a garden versus simply harvesting whatever grows naturally. A transactional approach might yield quick results, but without careful cultivation of relationships and systems, the garden could become less productive over time.

Being There

In the 1979 film "Being There," Peter Sellers plays Chance, a simple gardener whose straightforward observations about gardening are mistaken for profound political and economic wisdom. The most famous quote comes when he advises the President about the economy, saying:

"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well and all will be well in the garden... In a garden, growth has its seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again."

This quote becomes particularly meaningful in the context of the film because Chance's literal gardening advice is interpreted as a sophisticated metaphor for economic cycles and recovery. The President and other political figures project deep meaning onto his simple horticultural observations, taking them as profound commentary on how economies, like gardens, go through natural cycles of growth, decline, and renewal.

The genius of the film lies in how it shows these powerful figures finding wisdom in Chance's guileless gardening knowledge, while the audience knows he is speaking purely literally about actual gardens. This creates a rich commentary on how people often seek and find meaning that aligns with their own perspectives and needs, even in the most straightforward statements.

Parallel

Similarly, a purely transactional president might appear to simplify international relations by reducing everything to immediate deals and obvious exchanges of value. Just as Chance speaks only about the literal garden while others see metaphors about the economy, a transactional leader might see only the immediate "garden" of deals and trades, missing the deeper complexity of international relationships.

But here's where it gets particularly interesting: Both Chance and a transactional leader might seem easier to understand at first - their straightforward approaches appear to cut through complexity. However, just as Chance's simple gardening wisdom can't actually address the nuanced challenges of running a country, a purely transactional approach to international relations often fails to account for the complex "ecosystem" of global politics.

This parallel also highlights how others must work around such simplicity. In the film, other characters have to interpret and elaborate on Chance's basic statements to make them work in complex situations. Similarly, other world leaders and diplomats often have to find ways to work within and around a transactional framework, translating their complex needs into simple exchanges that fit this limited perspective.

Long Term and Short Term

The tension between long-term diplomatic relationship building and short-term political pressures creates a complex dynamic that significantly influences leadership decisions. Democratic leaders face a fundamental challenge: they need to demonstrate concrete achievements to their constituents within relatively short electoral cycles, typically 4-6 years. This creates what political scientists call the "electoral time horizon problem." Long-term diplomatic investments, while potentially more valuable for the nation's future, often don't produce visible results within this timeline.

Consider how this plays out in practice: A leader who secures a trade deal that immediately creates 10,000 jobs can point to specific, measurable outcomes during their next campaign. In contrast, a leader who invests time and resources in building trust with allies, strengthening international institutions, or developing cultural exchange programs might not have such tangible results to show voters, even though these efforts might yield far greater benefits over time.

This dynamic becomes even more pronounced in our modern media environment. News cycles favour simple, dramatic narratives about "winning" and "losing" in international relations. A leader who can announce a specific trade concession or diplomatic victory gets immediate media attention. Meanwhile, the patient work of relationship building rarely makes headlines. It's similar to how a crash diet might get more attention than the steady practice of healthy eating habits, even though the latter produces better long-term results.

The problem is compounded by what economists call "time-inconsistent preferences" among voters. People generally understand the value of long-term investments in theory, but when faced with immediate choices, they often prefer short-term gains. This creates a perverse incentive structure where leaders who might personally understand the importance of relationship building feel compelled to pursue more transactional approaches to satisfy voter demands for visible victories. Take, for example, international climate agreements. A purely transactional leader might reject such agreements because the immediate economic costs are clear and measurable, while the benefits are long-term and diffuse. Even if voters care about climate change in principle, they might still reward leaders who prioritise immediate economic benefits over long-term environmental investments.

This electoral pressure toward transactionalism can create what game theorists call a "race to the bottom." If one leader adopts a transactional approach and secures short-term wins, other leaders face pressure to do the same, even if they understand it's collectively suboptimal. It's similar to how companies might engage in environmentally harmful practices to remain competitive, even when executives understand the long-term costs to everyone.

All of this takes us back to the garden - just as a garden needs consistent care regardless of who tends it, international relationships require sustained attention beyond any single leader's term. The challenge is creating political systems that can support this long-term perspective while still remaining responsive to democratic pressures.

Historical Echoes

Consider Richard Nixon's approach to China in the 1970s. While Nixon was often pragmatic and focused on American interests, the success of his China policy actually demonstrates why purely transactional diplomacy has limitations. The opening to China required extensive groundwork beyond simple deal-making - it involved cultural exchanges, symbolic gestures like ping-pong diplomacy, and careful consideration of how the relationship would affect other diplomatic partnerships, particularly with Taiwan and the Soviet Union.

Another instructive example is the Marshall Plan after World War II. A purely transactional leader might have seen little immediate benefit in spending billions to rebuild former enemies like Germany. However, this investment in rebuilding Europe created stable trading partners, strengthened democratic institutions, and helped to hold the western line against the spread of communism.

Contrast these with more purely transactional approaches, such as certain periods of British imperial policy in India during the 19th century. While this extracted immediate economic benefits for Britain, it also created deep-seated resentments and instabilities that had long-lasting negative consequences for both countries.

Even in more recent trade negotiations, we can see how a strictly transactional approach can backfire. When countries focus solely on immediate economic gains without considering broader relationship dynamics, it can lead to retaliatory tariffs, reduced cooperation on other issues like climate change or security, and damage to long-standing diplomatic relationships that are difficult to repair.

These examples show us that while transactional diplomacy might seem simpler on the surface, successful international relations usually require a more nuanced approach that considers both immediate benefits and longer-term strategic interests.

This is why, unlike many people I don’t believe the leadership of a country should be entrusted to transaction oriented business people.