This author is focused on one aspect of cancel culture - the importance of the words and actions of our leaders. Certainly, the words and actions of our leaders matter. What's vague, though, is how leadership is defined here. Should we narrow "leadership" in this context to elected leaders? How about leaders at our university? Leaders of our social groups? Leaders of our place of employment? Leaders in our homes?... I could go on.

Aren't we ALL leaders of something?

Then, what the article misses is that cancel culture affects EVERYONE - even if the scope is supposedly limited to "leadership".

Let's re-scope this a little bit and say that, for the sake of this article and the research cited within, that we'll define "leadership" to just the leadership provided by our elected leaders in government. The argument presented still only tackles part of pressing issue of cancel culture. For it is our elected leaders who should be protecting average Americans from cancel culture. So, it is the responsibility of those leaders - as we've narrowly defined them for the time being - to (1) take great care of the words they use and actions they chose AND (2) take great care in protecting average Americans from being canceled. Unfortunately, the article skips right over the second part.

Consider Bill Maher's thoughts on cancel culture (with examples)... "Memo to social justice warriors: when what you're doing sounds like an Onion headline, stop." https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/1365537755237818368

Any discussion about cancel culture that stops before addressing the canceling of average Americans is quite short-sighted.