To be sure, it is possible that we Americans have become so dire and politically polarized that we are no longer able to run a responsible democracy. But for those still clinging to hope, I have a theory that could move forward.
It has more to do with football than anything else.
Football is one of the few American institutions that continues to unite us. The sport attracts reliable audiences in blue and red states alike. This year’s Super Bowl was watched by more than 120 million people, a record high. I’ve always watched the game from the outside and more recently from the inside, and I’ve always wondered if soccer had something to teach politics.
The answer finally became clear when Kamala Harris did something unconventional at the Democratic National Convention in August. In her acceptance speech, she referred to her running mate as “Coach Tim Walz,” and said voters were more likely to meet with the Minnesota governor than meet with the former defensive coordinator of a high school football team that won a state championship. He suggested that he may also be feeling the enthusiasm. During Walz’s acceptance speech the night before, attendees spontaneously chanted “coach, coach, coach”, conclusively confirming this assumption.
At that time, I thought: Americans are tired of being coached, but they are genuinely open to being coached.
Consider the benefits of being a chief coach. The great coaches I know are big on strategy, but they also know how to delegate. They use emotion to inspire people, but rarely at the expense of consistency or calmness. They tend to overcommunicate and avoid trafficking out of fear. They understand that there are no style points in soccer. All that matters is the final score. And they know what can happen on the field, so you have to be ready to pivot, be willing to compromise, and you can’t hold your principles too dear. When you’re winning, you should take a step back and let the players win.
This sounds like a blueprint for a politician who can unite us in a way we haven’t seen in a long time.
I need a case study to test my theory. Dwy Eisenhower was a star football player at West Point before a knee injury ended his career. In 1916, he was hired as the football coach at St. Louis College, a small Catholic school now called St. Mary’s College. He had little coaching experience, but the school didn’t care. That team had previously been managed by a loose collection of monks and hadn’t won a game in years.
Expectations were low, but Eisenhower’s team tied the first game. After that, they won five consecutive games and finished the season with a record of 5 wins, 1 loss, and 1 draw. His players remembered him fondly. “We thought about him more than any other coach we’ve ever had,” one of them said. “He was a very straightforward and honest man, and we learned more about honor and discipline from him than anywhere else.”
Eisenhower, of course, went on to become one of the greatest leaders in American history. During World War II, he served as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, uniting the Alliance, leading the D-Day invasion, and defeating the Nazis. He then served two terms in the White House from 1953 to 1961.
Mr. Eisenhower never suggested that coaching football made him a leader. However, he considered soccer to be a great incubator of leadership. Football, he writes, “tends to instill in men the sense that victory comes through hard, almost slavish work, team play, self-confidence, and dedication.”
Most historians have a favorable opinion of Eisenhower’s presidency. He oversaw a robust economy, built an interstate highway system, and invested in higher education and science. He signed the Civil Rights Act, attacked McCarthyism, ended the Korean War, and worked to rein in the Soviet Union.
But one of Eisenhower’s most monumental accomplishments went largely unrecorded at the time. Mr. Eisenhower averaged a very high approval rating of 65% over his two terms. The public loved him. Americans understood that the world was a dangerous place, but Eisenhower’s humility and self-control conveyed a confidence that promised opportunities to pursue prosperity. It’s no coincidence that his tenure is remembered for flashy displays of American optimism: the tailfins of cars, the rise of rock ‘n’ roll, the demographic upheavals of the baby boom.
Eisenhower was not only popular but also trusted. I believe it’s because of the way he teaches. And in many ways, he coached like a football coach. He wasn’t the most dynamic or charismatic leader. But as scholars considered his papers, they began to see that he was more passionate, proactive, and strategic behind the scenes than he appeared on the surface. His perceived aloofness was often a strategic restraint. He avoided fear-mongering or divisive statements. And he worked silently to develop tactics that were most likely to yield positive results.
One of the paradoxes of leadership is that the better the leadership, the less it tends to attract people’s attention. When leaders remain calm, consistent, and unite people with sensible courses of action, observers are less likely to recognize their influence or give them proper credit. This is true of great coaches, and it may also be true of great presidents. Indeed, so was Eisenhower.
The ancient Chinese philosopher Laozi wrote: When his work is done and his purpose accomplished, they will say, “We did it ourselves.”
That best describes Eisenhower’s presidency. And it also serves as a prescription for the kind of leaders America needs.
Sam Walker is a former sports editor for the Wall Street Journal, a scouting consultant for the Los Angeles Rams, and the author of Captain Class: A New Theory of Leadership.
The Times is committed to publishing a selection of letters to the editor. Please let us know what you think about this article or article. Here are some tips. Our email address is: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and WhatsApp. × And the thread.
