|
Leadership - a relic of days gone by?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
If you were to open up a dictionary and turn the page to the entry for the word "leader," you'd probably see something like this:
lead-er (n.)
1. Someone or something that leads.
Of course the actually definition would be more thorough, attempting to encompass every possible usage of the word - even those which make no sense. We have grown accustomed to calling people in places of authority "leaders." But authority is merely the ability to make a decision - it makes you an arbiter more than it makes you a leader. A leader is not merely one who makes a decision, a leader is someone who is ahead of those who follow, and who draws those followers in his or her wake. In short - a leader is not one who merely decides, but one who not only decides, but inspires everyone around them with confidence in the decision and a willingness to move forward in consensus with the decision made.
For most of the history of the United States of America, those holding political office were many of the best leaders in the nation. Even in tightly contested races, candidates weren't evaluated based upon how poor a leader they were, but how good they were. But this is true no longer.
Make no mistake about it. George W. Bush is not a good leader. Whether or not you agree with his policies, you ought to at least see that much. When you are reviled by well over a third of the people you are supposed to lead, you are not a good leader. Whether or not you're right about the issues, you haven't inspired - or, rather, you haven't lead the people for whom you are, supposedly, a "leader."
But if John Kerry is any better, I don't yet see it. Say what you will about the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," but you cannot say that Kerry did a very good job of instilling them with confidence in his decision-making abilities. For that matter, what progress has Kerry made in converting moderate republicans or independents to his cause? Not much of anything. In fact, Bush has probably done more to help Kerry win the moderate vote than Kerry has. Kerry is a man with little presence who inspires confidence only in those who, disgusted by Bush, are desperate to find someone - anyone but Bush - who they can have a little faith in. But this man - he is no leader. He was little more than a footnote at a political convention that was supposed to build momentum for his candidacy. It didn't, because almost everyone was far more interested in what Clinton, Gore, Obama, and even his wife had to say than what Kerry did.
It may be an election for the "leader" of the country, but rest assured that the man who wins will be no leader.
How did this happen? Why don't the people of America vote true leaders into office any longer? Well, for one - true leaders rarely run for office these days. But it's more than that. The entire system has become a perverted, bastardized shell of its former self. There are two reasons why this has happened, and they work hand in hand: psychology and money.
The evolution of marketing paradigms mirrors the degradation of political campaigns conspicuously. Once upon a time marketing was the art of the clear, concise elucidation of the factual characteristics of the product or service being advertised. Watching a commercial, you might be educated about the painstaking care with which each unit is crafted, or about the particular innovations which make one company better than its competitors. But today, you would struggle to find a single advertisement that contains this type of information - and if you did, you probably wouldn't notice or care about it. As time has progressed, however, intelligent and enterprising advertisers (who, incidentally, were actual leaders) have learned to employ clever psychological tricks to earn more money by selling more of their product - often at a lower cost of production as well. Rather than attempting to persuade the logical part of your mind that their product or service is superior by the bland enumeration of the relevant facts, they attack the creative and emotional parts of us by attempting to trap us inside a intoxicating psychological fantasy where wearing that new shirt will make us better, more attractive people. Who cares about craftsmanship when a shirt has the power to transform who you are as a person? No one does. They exploit our emotions - all of our dreams and desires, and our fears and insecurities too - to persuade us to give them our money. And it works. It works so well that everyone does it - and in fact everyone has to do it. Using an obsolete, rational, fact-based marketing paradigm would be a fast way to end up bankrupt.
Analogously, modern political campaigns are tightly controlled, perfectly scripted machines designed to do one thing: manipulate your emotions to make you a means to an end for the parties and the wealthy who fund them. We assimilate our political views into part of our identity: being a republican or a democrat becomes part of who we are - and thus, becomes too sacrosanct to be subject to petty things like facts, reason, or, least of all, leadership. Political conventions once were places where real choices were made, compromises formed, and deals struck. Now, they are little more than drawn out advertisements intended to solidify within your mind membership to a political party as part of your core identity.
Leadership is no longer necessary or even very useful in the quest to become a figure of political authority, and at this point, I see very little chance of turning back.
Leadership, R.I.P. :( |
|
|
| Q5echo |
Abraham Lincoln. ya heard? guarantee you at least half the people didn't like him.
Winston Churchill. ring a bell? yeah, the same.
don't confuse popularity with results when you talk about leadership in a free world. it makes for a silly post. after all, we're not electing the student body president. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Abraham Lincoln. ya heard? guarantee you at least half the people didn't like him.
Winston Churchill. ring a bell? yeah, the same. |
Your guarantees aren't worth anything more than CompUSA's. Do you have anything but hot air to support your claims?
| quote: | | don't confuse popularity with results when you talk about leadership in a free world. it makes for a silly post. after all, we're not electing the student body president. |
Strange to hear that coming from a supporter of a president who was elected campaigning on charisma and popularity rather than issues and results. I suppose that is the eternal quandary of the true believer...
Don't worry, you can just bury your head in the sand and it will all go away. I promise. :) |
|
|
| tathi |
good post
| quote: | Arbiter
How did this happen? Why don't the people of America vote true leaders into office any longer? Well, for one - true leaders rarely run for office these days. |
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Plato |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| So who is a true leader then? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
"To solve big problems you have to be willing to do unpopular things." Lee Iacocca
Lincoln didn't produce, right? maybe you don't know of him
i don't know much, but i'm pretty familiar with what it takes to be a successfull leader and popularity is way down there on the hierarchy of needs.
popularity will always be short term. short term does not produce. you cannot please all the people.
sorry i called your post silly. |
|
|
| Ondrayce |
George Bush can be a very good leader if you don't mind being lead in the wrong direction. Economic recession over growth, jobs being taken away rather than created, grasping at every straw you can to declare bloody, pointless wars, rather than doing whatever it takes to avoid them.
George? You are a hell of a leader. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| Islamic facism can not be avoided. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
| It takes money and selling out to powerful people to get elected. I think that most governments are just puppets of big corporations who employ many people and these corps want tax breaks and advantages. I don't think there are leaders anymore because most heads of state or governments just do what the powerful wants them to do. Why do you think there are tax breaks given to the rich and not the middle class and why the income gap gets larger every year. Our prime minister is a sellout as well, he represents the rich and powerful because he is rich and powerful. |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| would you consider hitler a good leader? i mean the people followed him and he ruled with an iron fist..granted he was wacko but is he considered good leader material? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceaholic
would you consider hitler a good leader? i mean the people followed him and he ruled with an iron fist..granted he was wacko but is he considered good leader material? |
no. that example is another confusion between popularity and sound leadership.
if you were to apply Arbiter's, so far, vague description of effective leadership as a popularity contest then you would be not only proven wrong by me, but by history as well:D |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
"To solve big problems you have to be willing to do unpopular things." Lee Iacocca |
Nonsense. To solve big problems you need enthusiastic cooperation. If the "leader" isn't popular, people won't want to follow. What you have to really do to solve big problems is take an unpopular solution, make it popular, and then implement it. Ordering people around might get results sometimes, but in order to genuinely solve problems over the long term you need greater commitment from everyone involved.
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceaholic
would you consider hitler a good leader? i mean the people followed him and he ruled with an iron fist..granted he was wacko but is he considered good leader material? |
It's true that people followed Hitler, and in that sense he was a leader. I wouldn't call him a good leader though. He really only served as a mouthpiece for already popular prejudices when rising to power, and then later ruled by fear which is usually the tactic of a desperate man, not a strong leader. |
|
|
|
|
