Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Defining Leadership:
The Answers Are WithinWhatever we decide in the coming months about who will lead us/US, one thing's fairly certain, our new leader will be a first of some kind—the first woman, the first black or the first candidate campaigning for a 100-year war.
There will be change. The group in power now promised change, and we sure got it. The last off-year election brought us a new Congress that promised changes in Iraq, but that changed too. Mitt Romney's ads called for change. I even heard Sen. John McCain called the candidate of change, and he may be for the Republicans.
I heard one right-wing radio talk-show host complain that McCain's selection has disenfranchised a whole segment of society—right-wing radio talk-show hosts.
While the change Sen. Hilary Clinton calls for is a little more specific, some prefer Sen. Barack Obama's more contextual, visionary approach—the dream and inspiration without the specifics. And since we are the one to fill in the blanks as to what that dream means, how can we disagree?
To his credit, he is attracting people who have not been involved previously and that is no small feat. The banter between all the candidates can be maddening though can't it? And then it gets exaggerated and rehashed.
Both Democratic candidates, however, do promise to be very different from what we have now and do have a similar direction. The hope is that in November we'll know more and be given a clear choice between the final two candidates.
It's interesting to talk with people and what leadership style they prefer. When it really comes down to it, however, I have to wonder, wasn't it leadership that got us where we are today?
Where we are today, is spending more on'“defense” than the rest of the world combined, yet not able to control a small country about the size of California. While even controlling California remains a Republican challenge, they somehow seem to think we can control Iraq and are even winning now.
But did you noticed last month that they also expressed concern about whether or not anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr would tell his followers to continue with a ceasefire or not? He told his Shiite followers in Iraq to stop fighting six months ago. Wasn't that about the same time U.S. troops took control and started winning?
And what got us there? Wasn't it a leader full of self-righteous conviction that took the bold steps that led us into the Middle East? He wasn't worried about what the American public or the world thought about it either. Now that's a strong leader. Unfortunately, what came next was watching, threatening and attempting to control those who disagreed with him.
Right now, after seeing a government incompetently run—the FDA is the latest example—by such as strong leader, do we really want a strong leader or simply a good administrator? Do we want someone who runs us or someone who is good at running the systems of government?
Doing that, in a Constitutional way, is their job. Looking to the Constitution is the change I think we should hear about from our candidates. The answers to what kind of leadership we seek lies within the Constitution. It's defined there. It's someone who follows it.
The question is, who can best hold an office that comes with such immense power—including the resources to withhold information, manipulate opinion and lie—and still uphold the Constitution?
Don't we want someone who can deny the personal benefit that power might bring them and instead fulfill their oath to uphold the Constitution? That's really the job description.
After the last seven years, most of us know that a major political party is absolutely capable of nominating and electing someone who is incompetent and who defines the law to his benefit.
How the government defines our rights—sounds backwards doesn't it?—or what it means to be an American is really the question that our candidates need to answer. Do they have that ability? Have our rights changed? Has the Patriot Act altered us/US and what we took for granted, such as habeas corpus?
Many in the world and this country think so. Part of this is what I was able to ask Sen. John Edwards about last month. (Feb08) If things look like they have changed, isn't it time to reaffirm who we are?
I'd like to hear the remaining candidates talk more about that. Isn't it important to tell us they don't like the direction we have gone? And can they deny themselves the benefit of abusing the incredible power they will be given? Will they operate openly?
The Constitution clearly states that the rights that are not reserved to the Federal or State governments remain with the people. Remain. That's a key word that shows us what direction it flows.
Ultimately the leader we might seek—the one that will come in on a stallion and take us to the Promised Land doesn't exist—nor should we want that to happen in a democracy. In this country we decided on a different approach. It was called an “experiment” and it continues to evolve.
In our system, as long as we think the leader is external to us, they are the wrong leader. We have to be there with open eyes and ears paying attention more than just at election time. Perhaps more importantly, we need our noses getting in “their” business. The secrecy we've put up with is the antithesis of a democracy.
The media just isn't very good at getting us facts anymore. They search for the'sound bites, conflicts and slip-ups—the hooks to get us to tune in at 11 because a bigger audience means more money. They now think they are there to do that, make money. The issues are replaced by their take on people's intentions and emotions. Now it's the sports news, i.e., how the players are strategizing and winning the game, or not—instead the media could use their vast resources to really look at issues that effect our lives or notice when people are not doing their job or telling us the truth.
If I knew who would best uphold the Constitution and make it a priority to restore the idea that people—the us in U.S.—really are important and worth listening to—that's who I would vote for. Someone who would help remove the blocks that have people think they can't make a difference.
And if, after promising change, they ignore their own platforms and promises once again, it may be time for us to express our power differently. It takes a Congress and President to govern or misgovern. It takes a lot to impeach a President and “they” have to do it.
How many Congressmen, however, would we have to recall before we got their attention? If it was stated that the reason for it was they were not doing what they said they would, they might better recall what they promised before they were elected. Remember that California did recall a governor.
When it comes to leadership, the solutions are within—the Constitution and us.
Have a great month,
Steve
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
