Abstract

For Confucians, public life — holding political office or assuming some sort of community leadership role — is a natural expression of moral accomplishment. Daoists would care little for either Bill Clinton or John Roberts. The personal faults of the former president would not surprise the writers of the Daodejing or Zhuangzi. Daoism and Confucianism provide very different views on who should lead and how leaders should perform. The more activist Confucian ideal of an exemplary leader, living a morally good life and acting to make it possible for others to do the same, stands in stark contrast to the Daoist anti‐leader, situated below and behind followers, doing as little as possible to facilitate what would have happened anyway. Daoist anti‐leadership creates an anti‐politics of sorts, focusing more on civil society than state power.