The vice president had a bargaining asset, however, that no

"The vice president had a bargaining asset, however, that no ordinary person has: He was next in line to the presidency. I saw no chance that he would resign first, then take his chances on trial, conviction, and jail." These words by Elliot Richardson, the former U.S. Attorney General, reflect the subtle but powerful dynamic of power and influence within the corridors of government. Richardson’s statement touches on the concept of leverage—the unique bargaining chip that comes with high office, a chip that no ordinary person possesses. The vice president, by virtue of being next in line for the presidency, holds a position that many would view as an asset of immense value, one that offers protection and influence, far beyond the reach of a typical citizen. His words highlight the weight of power and the lengths to which individuals will go to retain it, even in the face of scandal or unethical behavior.

The ancients understood the power dynamics that shaped political relationships and governance. The story of Julius Caesar and the Roman Senate serves as a vivid example. Caesar, a general with immense political capital, understood the leverage he held through his army and his political alliances. When Pompey and Crassus, his fellow members of the First Triumvirate, attempted to strip him of his power, Caesar knew that the key to retaining his influence lay in his military power. He crossed the Rubicon, challenging the Senate and thrusting Rome into civil war. His understanding of leverage, of using what was at his disposal to protect his political position, was a key reason for his rise to absolute power. In much the same way, the vice president in Richardson’s quote holds a unique bargaining chip—the knowledge that the presidency is within his reach.

This notion of leverage is not confined to history’s great conquerors; it runs through the stories of rulers, both ancient and modern, who understood that power is not simply a matter of titles, but of what one can use to maintain those titles. Consider King Henry VIII of England, whose desire for a male heir led him to break with the Catholic Church. His ability to leverage his political influence and wield his power over the Church of Rome was a demonstration of how leaders use the bargaining power inherent in their positions to achieve their aims, even if those aims required extraordinary actions. For Henry, as for the vice president in Richardson’s statement, holding a position of great authority provided the leverage to act in ways that would have been impossible for the common person.

Richardson’s insight also hints at a deeper reality of human nature: that fear of loss, particularly the loss of power, can drive individuals to make decisions that are both calculating and self-serving. The vice president, as Richardson suggests, would not likely resign to face the uncertainty of a trial or potential conviction because the risk of losing the presidency—his ultimate security—was too great. In the face of potential downfall, individuals will often cling to what they know is safe, even if it means making morally questionable decisions. This speaks to the corrupting influence of power—how those in high office may be driven by their fear of losing status, wealth, and influence, leading them to engage in actions they might otherwise have never considered.

The ancients often warned of the corrupting effects of power, Plato most famously through his allegory of the Ring of Gyges. In the story, a shepherd named Gyges finds a ring that grants him the ability to become invisible. With this newfound power, Gyges eventually kills the king and seizes the throne for himself. The tale reflects the inherent dangers of unchecked power—how it can corrupt an individual’s moral compass, leading them to make choices driven not by ethics but by self-interest. The vice president in Richardson’s quote may not have resorted to such drastic actions as Gyges, but his fear of losing power mirrors the same underlying instinct: to protect oneself at any cost.

From this reflection, we can draw a crucial lesson: the power of leverage in life can be both a gift and a curse. While having a position of influence allows us to create opportunities and secure our future, it also opens the door to temptation and ethical compromise. Just as the vice president used his position as a bargaining asset, we too must recognize that the leverage we hold—whether in our careers, our relationships, or in our personal lives—can shape our decisions and our moral integrity. The key lies not in the power itself but in how we choose to wield it. Do we use our influence to build, create, and uplift, or do we cling to it out of fear and self-preservation?

To take practical action, we must cultivate a strong sense of ethics and self-awareness. When we find ourselves in positions of influence, whether in our personal or professional lives, we must ask ourselves: How do I use this power? Is it to help others, to move society forward, or simply to maintain my own position? We must also learn to recognize the moments when fear of loss, rather than a true sense of duty, drives our decisions. Like the great leaders of the past, we must understand that true power lies not in self-preservation, but in the ability to serve the greater good and act with integrity.

Finally, let us remember that leverage is not inherently bad, but it is the use of that leverage that defines us. Whether we hold the power of position, wealth, or influence, we must wield it wisely, with humility and a clear conscience. In doing so, we can ensure that our legacy is one of respect and integrity, not of fear-driven decisions that harm ourselves and others.