It seems to me we've lost sight of something important in the past few years about what the President's appropriate role is in our society. We seem to have shifted our attention from concepts of leadership to concepts of managerial skill and experience. It seems clear to me that, now more than ever, we need someone who can lead the nation rather than someone who can manage a bureaucracy. Leaders hire managers.
At least in our local press, there's been a lot of commentary of late on the "resumes" of the various candidates for the White House. The questions arise mostly from Republicans who bemoan the fact that, in their view, none of the Democratic candidates left in the field has any real "executive experience", i.e., as a governor or mayor. (I'll ignore for the moment the fact that the only real Democrat in the race, Dennis Kucinich, does in fact have substantial mayoral experience.) These people claim what we need is proven experience in economics, diplomacy, and organizational management. In other words, they want to see us elect a competent bureaucrat.
I'm not sure that is good advice at any time. In our current historical cross-current, it is not only not good advice, it's horrendous advice that shows no depth of thought. No one person could be sufficiently expert in all aspects of leading this nation right now that he or she could overcome the unimaginable burdens of an illegal and unpopular war, an economy spiraling rapidly toward recession, a fatally flawed health care system, an education enterprise that is fundamentally broken, and global climate change that is perilously close to ending the human race. These are Big Issues whose solutions require management expertise only after a broad, overarching philosophical framework for their solution is in place and accepted by the majority.
In short, this is a time for a leader, not a manager.
While a clear definition of the word "leadership" is elusive at best, it is likely we can all agree on two characteristics. First, a leader must have followers. In the case of the President, he must have sufficient followers to get elected and then to govern. While we have traditionally thought that this meant he had to have majority support, I think as we emerge into an era of greater pluralism it may be more accurate to suggest the President ought to command respect and support from a plurality. Second, a leader must be inspirational. In other words, he must be able to motivate his followers to do the things he sees the nation as needing. Those are two characteristics that cannot be delegated. Nearly everything else can either be delegated or at least shared.
When I look at the current crop of candidates, I see true leaders capable of uniting the nation behind their inspirational vision only in Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are too divisive to garner support by a substantial plurality of our citizenry. John McCain is not only divisive within his own party, he is not an inspirational thinker or speaker. Rudy Giuliani is a joke in his own city and has demonstrated a complete inability to create a vision that isn't labeled "9/11".
I don't agree with Mssrs. Paul and Huckabee and my mind's not yet made up on Obama, but any of these people could lead the nation effectively. And they could all hire highly competent specialists to manage specific aspects of their administrations.
http://www.danshafer.com/onemind
Dan Shafer is a long-time technology writer, political commentator and sports fanatic who has been on the Web since before it was called that and who has one of the longest-running blogs. A long-time liberal activist, Dan has recently begun turning his pen and attention to spiritual issues and challenges facing humanity.
That's what I'm concerned about. We need a leader who has the vision to look beyond the pool of input from special interests and who broadens their vision by inviting the input of we the people, and who has the wisdom to consider common interests in the capitalist equation. Unfortunately, none of those you conclude with fit the bill. Leadership must move beyond the realm of the cult of personality, it has failed us miserably to this point and there is no reason to expect change on this path moving forward.
by
all owners (1 articles, 56 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 140 comments)
on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 2:41:00 PM
He has already demonstrated his leadership qualities with his tireless fight for justice through impeachment proceedings.
I was specifically referring to the concluding segment of your article, in particular:
\\
I don't agree with Mssrs. Paul and Huckabee and my mind's not yet made up on Obama, but any of these people could lead the nation effectively. And they could all hire highly competent specialists to manage specific aspects of their administrations.
//
I don't agree with them either, but neither do I think they would provide effective leadership. Sorry for an confusion this caused.
by
all owners (1 articles, 56 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 140 comments)
on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 4:01:45 PM
In the primary season, I've always believed it's important to cast what Kucinich calls a "courageous" vote, to vote your conscience rather than what the corpstream media are telling you is happening. Even if Dennis can't win the nomination (and there are a couple of scenarios where he could), the more vote clout he has going in, the more he can at least help shape the platform. Don't let the corpstream's rants about "electability" (about which, by the way, they don't really have a clue) deter you from voting for the best candidate in the field.
by
Dan Shafer (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 34 comments)
on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 5:02:34 PM
"We need a leader - " - Like hell we do!!!! That's what we've got, and it's the last thing we need.
What we need is a Congress the members of which will do what the people tell them to do, and we need a 'Chairman or President' who will do what the Congress damn well tell him to do.
But what do we have? Right, a 'leader' who is criminally in the pocket of the financial interests that pay him to lead the country to penury and the planet to perdition. And all over the world it's the same.
"Leader"? The last thing we need are "leaders" - or Governors, or rulers, or kings or presidents or any of these trumped-up morons who are put there and paid simply to lay us, the populations, at the financial predators' disposal.
Wake up! What we need is to be able to lead ourselves. And that is easy. WE nominate and draft OUR representatives, dismiss and replace them at a moment's notice if consistently against the general good, and hang them for corruption, together with their corruptors. - Is that too difficult for you?
Simple. Then do it.
by
amazin (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 377 comments)
on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 10:43:56 AM
I agree with this statement. I have objected to candidates telling me about their "experience" to be President instead of the leadership skills needed for this job. Experience has little to do with great leadership. I would add a few additional traits of great leaders in addition to having Vision and the ability to convey that vision to others. Intelligence (which is one reason why I would never classify the present President as a leader). Great leaders are not stupid. They are typically intelligent people. Leaders work cooperatively with others (which is something that bothers me about Bush and Clinton particularly they are divisive people -- my way or the highway). Great leaders work well with other people and that in part is what makes them great leaders. Finally, delegation of authority. Great leaders allow others to carry out the details of their vision. They do not micromanage situtations. Leaders take responsibility for situations whether the outcome is good or bad, they take responsibility. That is another reason Clinton is worrisome. She blames others when things don't go the way she wants. It was Bush who mislead her. It was the "right wing conspiracy" that is to blame for her bad image and that of her husband Bill. It was the "health care industry" who defeated her efforts in health care. I have even heard her claim credit for "their White House years" as though she was a co-President when Bill was in office.
My concern with Kucinich is not his message, but his inspiration. He is not the dynamic person you would like to see as a leader. I'm not bothered by Edwards positions so much as his rather grating oratory at times and his lack of that aura great leaders have. McCain is honest and forthright in his views, which typically don't agree with the majority many times. However, that doesn't mean he is wrong, he just needs to be more effective at convincing people he is right. I don't think he does that well, but I certainly respect McCain as an individual and put him ahead of people like Clinton and Romney who I view as opportunists. I actually like Ron Paul, but I don't feel what he espouses is the correct solution to the problems we face as a nation. Like many Republicans, his answer is always cut taxes and government and somehow all our problems disappear. That is only true if the public realizes that without government they need to step up and do the work previously done by government. I don't see that happening in most cases.
I like Obama personally. He is intelligent, he has a vision he communicates well to others which is why he has raised over $100 million in less than 1 year and has over 500,000 donors to his campaign. He is not that divisive. He comes across as cooperative and as a person willing to take responsibility, good or bad for the outcomes of his efforts and actions. I have yet to see Obama BLAME others for his problems. He relies instead on the force of his arguements. This is just my opinion, but in my view he is exactly the type of person I look for in a leader.
by
Peter Wedlund (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 154 comments)
on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 12:33:39 PM
Thanks for your post. I agree with it almost entirely
But if you heard Dennis Kucinich speak, you'd find yourself feeling that he is at least as inspirational and articulate as Obama. He gave a couple of speeches early in this campaign that had me weeping. His stump speech isn't so inspiring, but then none of these candidates' stump speech comes up to that level. I really think Kucinich would be a magnificent leader if given the chance. But I agree that given my criteria and your additions, Obama is the only *other* candidate in the field I'd characterize as a leader. I like Edwards on the issues but he does lack inspiration a good part of the time.
by
Dan Shafer (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 34 comments)
on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 1:12:42 PM
