Humility as a Democratic Strength
On the eve of D-Day, General Dwight Eisenhower faced one of the most consequential decisions any military commander has ever made. More than 150,000 Allied troops were preparing to cross the English Channel and land on the beaches of Normandy. The weather was deteriorating. Eisenhower had already postponed the invasion once. The forecasts offered little certainty about what would happen next.
He had to decide. He chose to proceed.
Eisenhower understood something that leaders sometimes forget: making a decision with conviction does not mean knowing that the decision will succeed. Before the invasion, he prepared a statement to be released if the operation failed. “If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt,” he wrote, “it is mine alone.”
The invasion succeeded, of course. The statement was never delivered. But its existence tells us something important about leadership. Eisenhower was willing to act decisively while acknowledging that he might be wrong. That is humility.
Humility is accepting that we might be wrong. It is not weakness or indecision. It does not require us to abandon conviction or avoid difficult choices. It asks something more demanding: that we recognize the limits of our knowledge even when we believe deeply in what we are doing. The great philosophers understood this.
Socrates made the recognition of ignorance the beginning of wisdom. His great contribution was not a body of answers but a method of questioning. He understood that the person who believes he already possesses the truth has little reason to listen, inquire or learn.
Augustine understood humility as a recognition of human limitation. Human beings are not self-sufficient. We do not see the whole of reality, and our desires and judgments are easily distorted by our own interests.
Montaigne carried the argument into everyday experience. He examined his own assumptions and repeatedly discovered how much of what he believed was shaped by the narrow circumstances of his life. Our experience can teach us, but it can also deceive us when we mistake our experience for the experience of everyone else.
Centuries later, John Stuart Mill made a democratic argument for the same discipline. Even an opinion that is wrong may contain part of the truth, he argued, and even a correct opinion becomes weaker when it is never tested against serious disagreement. We need other minds not simply to reinforce what we believe, but to expose what we cannot see
The lesson running through these traditions is remarkably simple: our knowledge is partial, our judgment is fallible and our experience is incomplete. That should not make us less confident. It should make us better listeners.
Yet humility is difficult in contemporary public life. We live in a culture that often equates certainty with strength. Politicians are rewarded for declaring rather than questioning. Commentators are rewarded for confidence rather than curiosity. Social media rewards the most emphatic version of an argument, not necessarily the most thoughtful one.
“I might be wrong” can sound like weakness. Changing one’s mind can be portrayed as inconsistency. Acknowledging uncertainty can be treated as a failure of leadership. Across the political spectrum, people increasingly inhabit information environments that reinforce what they already believe and provide endless evidence that the people who disagree with them are not merely mistaken, but foolish, corrupt or dangerous. Skepticism is not the enemy of conviction. It is what keeps conviction honest.
I learned something about the limits of my own understanding through my work at the Center for Justice and Accountability, where we represented people seeking justice and accountability for atrocity crimes.
Get C. Dixon Osburn’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
I met Joan Jara, the wife of Victor Jara, the famous Chilean folk singer who was assassinated by the Pinochet regime in the immediate aftermath of the 1973 coup. I sat with Joan and her daughters in the Orlando courtroom where we sued Pedro Pablo Barrientos, whom we alleged had shot Jara. I knew the facts of the case. I knew the legal arguments. I understood what we were asking the court to do. I could never know what it was like to lose Victor. I could not know what it meant for Joan to sit in that courtroom decades after his death. I could not know what memories she carried into the room, or what she hoped the proceedings might give her and her family. I could offer legal representation. I could listen. I could help tell the story, but I could not presume to know what justice would ultimately mean to her.
I felt the same humility when I joined victims of the Khmer Rouge at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington for an exhibit on the killing fields which featured many of their stories. We represented victims before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, giving them a voice in proceedings that sought accountability for atrocities committed decades earlier.
There were legal questions to resolve. There were perpetrators to identify and evidence to present. There was an enormous historical record to establish, but the people sitting before us were not merely witnesses to history. They were living with it. I could not presume to know what it meant to survive the Khmer Rouge. I could not know what it meant to lose parents, children, spouses or entire communities. I could not know whether seeing a perpetrator held accountable would bring closure, or whether closure was even what they wanted.
The legal system had its own definition of justice. The victims had their own experiences of it.
Our responsibility was not to tell them what they should feel. It was to listen carefully enough to understand what they were asking us to do.
I saw that again when we represented the sister of Marie Colvin in a lawsuit against the Assad regime over Marie’s murder. Marie was a celebrated journalist who had gone to Syria to bear witness to civilians suffering under the regime’s brutal crackdown. Her sister had lost someone she loved. The Syrians whose suffering Marie had documented had endured something far larger and more terrible. I could advocate for accountability. I could help establish facts. I could stand beside people seeking justice, but I could not presume to know what any of them had experienced or what outcome would make them whole.
We often speak about giving victims a voice. That phrase can contain a subtle arrogance if we are not careful. They already have voices. They have memories, judgments, grievances, hopes and ideas about justice. Our role was to help create a place where those voices could be heard.
Humility means understanding that proximity is not the same as understanding. We can stand beside someone without knowing exactly what they have endured. We can care deeply without claiming to know what another person needs. We can advocate for justice without deciding in advance what justice must mean to the person who has suffered.
This is where humility differs from empathy. Empathy asks us to try to see the world through another person’s eyes. Humility reminds us that we can never see it completely through their eyes. The two belong together. Without empathy, we can become indifferent to experiences unlike our own. Without humility, we can become presumptuous about those experiences, imagining that we understand another person simply because we have listened to their story.
No citizen possesses enough knowledge to govern alone. No political party possesses the whole truth. No ideology contains every answer. No president, however talented, can understand the lived experience of every American whose life is affected by a decision made in Washington.
The best leaders make decisions, but they also create ways to discover when those decisions are wrong. They listen to people who have information they lack. They seek out dissenting views. They ask what the consequences of a policy look like from the other side. They leave room to reconsider. That is not indecision. It is institutionalized humility.
Democratic institutions themselves embody this principle. Elections allow citizens to change their minds. Courts can reconsider precedent. Legislatures can amend laws. Investigations can expose mistakes. A free press can challenge official narratives. Citizens can organize against decisions they believe are wrong.
The genius is not that these institutions always get things right. It is that they allow us to discover when we are wrong.That may be democracy’s deepest advantage over systems built around the certainty of a single leader or ideology.Authoritarianism promises certainty. Democracy offers correction. Correction requires humility.
Today, we often approach political disagreement as though one side must possess the whole answer. We construct arguments designed not to persuade but to defeat. We surround ourselves with people who confirm what we already believe and increasingly encounter those who disagree with us only through caricature. Humility offers another possibility. It allows us to lower our defenses enough to ask a genuine question: What might they know that I do not? That question does not require agreement. It does not require surrender. It does not mean that every argument is equally valid or that every truth is relative. It simply acknowledges that another person may see something that we cannot see from where we stand.
In that space, between certainty and surrender, we might find something democracy needs desperately: the possibility of learning from one another.
