What is Leadership?
I mentioned in the earlier post that Republicans need to be more articulate in presenting their view of where we are and where they believe we need to go. From my perspective, this lack of articulation, is an important leadership failure, and will be the primary cause if George Bush/the GOP, fail in their primary agenda.
In my view, leadership has two parts:
- Lead by example - do what you ask others to do, set the example in actions and deeds.
- Lead by inspiration - clearly communicate the needs and goals in a manner that inspires and encourages others to join in and contribute. This does not mean that the message must be sugar coated, contrary wise it cannot be a bland statement of fact. What do you believe - and why is the goal important.
It doesn't have to be fancy, but it has to be clear and sincere. If you are going to 'shake' people out of their comfort zones, if you are going to propose a significant change, you have to be able to bring people on board. And it is not a one time thing - it is as important an effort, as say the real war in Iraq.
This, in my opinion, is where both Bush administrations failed. Bush 41, just didn't get that 'Vision thing'. While the current President Bush does have a vision, his staff has been of little benefit in helping him articulate and present that vision in a consitent and on going manner. He has consitently failed to use the power of his office to communicate to the American People. President Bush is not Ronald Reagan, but that should not prevent him from stealing shamelessly from President Reagan's playbook. Both face a hostile media, but Reagan made it work for him by appealing directly to the people on numerous occasions. This tactic is one that President Bush should well emulate. Townhall meetings, and press conferences don't cut it, and are prey to being reduced to insignifcant 'sound bites'. He needs to borrow a page from his own speech to America after 9/11.
Leadership of large groups by action alone is ineffective, and gives the appearance of aloofness. It works well for small, tightly knit groups, but is insufficient in larger contexts.
Leadership by speech/inspiration without action, appears insincere and patronizing; in crises only the already converted/true believers are around to follow.
America wants a leader, someone to insprire them by both word and deed. It does not have to be another Ronald Reagan. A review of presidents considered true leaders, that changed the view of America, show styles as individual as they were. But one thing is the same throughout - they led by example and they articulated their vision to America in a manner that Americans could believe in and follow.
Durbin - Key Indicator for the Left/Dems
I've been lax posting lately, mainly because I wanted to see where some of the 'hot' issues were going before saying much. There was/is certainly no shortage of other commentators on Sen. Durbin's remarks, so I don't want to re-hash too much of this.
If you work in the real world/business very much, then you are likely familiar with the concept of Key Indicators. These can be trends, performance numbers, or other data that gives a snap shot view of where a process/operation/organization, etc is at relative to its goals.
They can also be more 'subjective', based on statements of purpose, desired goals, vs. real world achievement of those same objectives.
Sen. Durbin's remarks were read from a prepared statement, so it is safe to assume that it was prepared, reviewed through various drafts, and finally approved with the assistance of various staff members. As the #2 Dem in the Senate, it should be safe to assume that at least some other members, with Sen Reid topping the list, were at least aware of the subject of that statement, if not the entire content, prior to its being made.
That speech/statement, offensive as it is, should be placed in context with both current and past statements coming from the same idealogical base. When viewed as a 'tapestry' with John Kerry's Winter Soldier testimony from the 60's up to present day statements from other comparative intellectual stars such as Sen. Peloski, it is apparent that Sen. Durbin's speech was not particualarly extreme. In fact, it tracks rather well in POV, and is somewhat less strident that similar subject matter that is part of the historical record.
What is telling about this, is at the time of the WinterSoldier testimony, this type of POV was attributed to the radical left, and not in any way to main stream politicians (excepting Kennedy). Move to present day, and it is now the core ideology of the what purports to be the mainstream Democratic Party. This leftward shift of the Democratic party is accompanied by a corresponding trend in loss of seats in both houses, and loss of viable candidates for the executive branch.
In response, the Democratic Party has begun to do something usually seen in non-democratic regimes. They have begun to denigrate and vilify the people who are not electing them, as too uneducated and ignorant to make the right decision. The sub text here, is that the Dems/left do know what is best for everyone, no matter what the majority thinks. This perspective is being used as a justification for further radicalization of the Democratic Party, and its increasing dependence on victimhood. (The more worrisome sidebar, is this same POV has been used to justify violent revolt.)
This is being accompanied by a blatant effort to re-write the history of the Democratic Party and the political positions it has taken overtime. Key party leaders have been caught in public statements attributing the positions and actions of the Democratic party of the time to the Republicans (civil rights obstruction/filibuster, support for slavery, discriminatory Jim Crow legislation in the South, Civil War reconstruction abuses, to name just a few), in an attempt to change this historical perception of where the Democratic Party has stood on critical issues.
The obvious anti-religion position of the Democratic Party is part and parcel of this. Like the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, N. Korea, and China, the Democratic Party is a jealous god and will not suffer its followers to have any God or religion other than itself. A key tool in this is the efforts of the ACLU, whose activities have little or nothing to do with the support of the constitutional law.
As a result, a political framework is being created for the emergence of a new center positioned political party to fill the void created by the current Democratic Party. The most likely scenario for this would be the fragmentation of the current Democratic Party during the 2006/2008 election cycle. The danger would be a rightward radicalization of this new party as it seeks to differentiate it self from its origins. Ideally it would straddle the center/left and center/right line, bringing in supporters from both of the current parties.
Time will tell how the current situation will evolve. The Republicans must become more articulate in presenting both the positions and their view of the future. This apparent inability to present a true leadership vision except in extremis (aka 9/11) is the only reason the current radical Democrats have held on to the public positions they do have.
