| YVONNE'S TAKE | ARGUE, BUT LEAD

The language of leadership For anyone scrolling through social media this week, here's a simple challenge. Read a few posts. Don't look at the names. Just read the words. One accuses a media house of extortion and gangsterism. Another warns of state-sponsored killer squads. A third responds with threats of "dire consequences." Now ask yourself: could you tell which post came from the President? Which from a Cabinet Secretary? Which from a former Deputy President? Or would you assume they were all written by anonymous accounts chasing outrage and engagement? Somewhere along the way, many of our political leaders stopped communicating like statesmen and started posting like participants in an endless online feud. That should concern all of us. Because leadership is communicated not only through decisions, but also through language. Words matter. Not because leaders must speak in polished diplomatic clichés while the country faces difficult challenges. Passion has its place. Disagreement is healthy. Robust political debate is essential in any democracy. But there is a difference between robust disagreement and perpetual provocation. There is a difference between accountability and antagonism. And there is certainly a difference between political leadership and performative online combat. Social media rewards the quickest insult, the sharpest clapback and the boldest accusation. Algorithms reward engagement, not nuance. Outrage often travels faster than reason. The concern is that too many leaders appear to have embraced those rules. Every disagreement becomes a public spectacle. Every criticism becomes personal. Every response feels compelled to outdo the last. The line between governing and content creation is becoming increasingly blurred. If those occupying the highest offices in the land begin communicating exactly like the loudest voices in the comment section, who then sets the standard? Who models restraint? Who demonstrates that authority is measured not by volume, but by judgment? This matters because political language is contagious. Citizens take cues from leaders. If leaders insult, supporters often insult louder. If leaders threaten, supporters may escalate further. If leaders abandon civility, it becomes much harder to expect it from everyone else. Perhaps that is why our public discourse feels increasingly angry, increasingly suspicious and increasingly polarized. We have normalized a politics in which every conversation must end with humiliation rather than persuasion. Where success is no longer convincing an opponent, but embarrassing one. That may be the greatest loss. Because leadership is not simply about winning arguments. It is about setting the tone of a nation. Our Constitution grants public officers immense authority. It also demands something in return: dignity, integrity and leadership worthy of public trust. Perhaps it is time we expected those values not only in the decisions leaders make, but also in the words they choose. Public trust is built as much by language as by policy. When every message sounds like a political brawl, even serious governance begins to resemble just another social media contest. Because if we can no longer distinguish the voice of a Head of State, a Cabinet Secretary or a former Deputy President from that of an anonymous account chasing the next viral moment... ...then we have diminished the office long before we have elevated the conversation.