1 post tagged “challenge”

John issued a challenge several days ago to write an article on what I thought political leadership was.  Here's his excellent essay.  And here's my paltry offering on the topic:

"A sense of humor is part of the art of leadership, of getting along with
people, of getting things done."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Getting things done."  That sounds so simple, doesn't it?  But as we poke and
prod at these three words, a much more complex picture emerges.  We expect our
politicians to get things done, because we elect them to do just that.  However,
we have to tell our elected employees what it is we expect them to do so they
can set about getting it all done.

I very deliberately use the term "elected employees"[1] because that best
illustrates their place in our society.  It's a reminder, to me, and hopefully
to those elected to assorted political and government offices, that they are not
independent contractors but rather a conduit of our will and needs.  They are
not leaders, but servants, chosen to do our bidding to advance our needs to the
entire nation and to weight those needs against the needs of other areas and the
nation as a whole.  They were elected to see to it that we, the people who
elected them, are not overlooked in the vastness of the United States.  A part
of that job is to inform us of the needs of other groups and allow us to help
decide if other needs outweigh ours - for the greater good of our country as
whole. 

This isn't happening as it should.  There's been a break-down in communication,
and the average American feels disenfranchised from the very government that is
supposed to be our tool.  Apathy has become the order of the day because so few
people understand exactly how our government should work. We are driven by our
country, not the driving force of our country. 

In America, our government is a republic [2].  Most people think we live in a
democracy, an assumption by the average American that is played upon and
exploited by the very people who should know better - the people we elect to
represent us in that republic.  They, and we, have forgotten that "the only
title in our democracy superior to that of President [is] the title of
citizen"[3]

There are so very many causes contributing to this that it is less effective to
look at what caused it and far more productive to look instead at ways to change
this.

We need leaders in our community - people who are clear-sighted and tough enough
to face reality.  They are more likely to be organizers, advisers, and
delegators of work.  They are deeply connected to the local community and they
know what's needed where and why.  More importantly, they know how to fulfill
those needs.  People know them, recognize them, and trust them to get things
done.  Unfortunately, these are not the people we are electing to our public
offices.

"A state is not a mere society, having a common place, established for the
prevention of mutual crime and for the sake of exchange...Political society
exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship."
Aristotle, Politics

It would be refreshing to be able to honestly state that our politicians, the
people we elect to public offices to represent us, were engaged in noble
actions, deeds that would strengthen our nation and make it stronger and better
than its individual parts.  I believe this was the ideal, the spirit in which
our Constitution was written by our Founders.

These people offered up their livelihoods and their freedom to birth this
country.  They spent many hours agonizing over how this country should be run,
seeking ways that would keep it running for centuries without reverting back to
the systems of government they were escaping.  Have you read those founding
documents, the letters our Founders wrote one another as they struggled to
create a nation that would be the freest and greatest country the world would
ever see?  Do you know how they struggled to create a government that would
protect us and allow us constant input in its operation?  Do you know the
difference between a democracy and a republic[4]?  Did you think it was easy for
our leadership back then to write this?

Those were leaders - people who offered up their lives and their wealth to
invest in a cause and a country that would be free.  They worked hard to ensure that
their new country would have the tools it needed to survive and thrive.  Their thoughts
weren't for their personal comfort and profit, but for the welfare of the country they
were forming.

And what have we done with it?  We - we, the people - abdicated our
responsibilities.  We don't look among us for the people who are genuine leaders
and put them up for the position of our elected employees, we have what amounts
to a popularity contest.  We vote for people based on their political platforms
- or maybe on their looks or their "sincerity".  Let the least hint of scandal
attach to them and we're appalled at their humanity.  We expect our elected
employees to be demi-gods, pure of soul and free of stain.  Or at least appear
to be so.

"If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in
democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the
government to the utmost."
Aristotle, Politics

Aristotle's ideas work well in small communities, nations the size of our
counties or perhaps the smaller states.  Democracy is for small countries.  The
United States of America is too big to work as a democracy and our founders
understood this.  They created our country to be a republic - a country where
the smaller segments may operate as democracies, but then they'd choose a person
to speak for them; representatives who would deal with the representatives of
other small segments of America to keep us all functioning smoothly together in
united cause.

With strong leadership and good choices in our elected employees, this would
work to our benefit.  How many of us even know the names of our city mayor, our
state governor, our state representatives and senator, let alone the names of
our federal representatives and senators?  Even if we voted for them, do we ever
communicate with them, tell them our concerns, our needs, our wants? 

It's no wonder these elected employees are going off on their own.  What other
job has so little supervision, so little oversight, that the employees can
dictate the terms of their employment and give themselves pay raises at the
expense of their employers?  They call themselves "leaders" because they are
making decisions, but those decisions benefit themselves, their friends, their
businesses, and the people who give them money - not the people who voted for
them.  Their employers - the people who voted for them - are virtually ignored
by most elected employees because we - the voters - don't exercise our
supervisory duties over them. 

At some point in our history, our elected employees seem to have convinced us
that they are the ones utterly in charge and once elected to office, we have no
further say in their activities.  They can act unilaterally and without
accountability in any matter they choose.

That's not true.  A real leader serves as a channel for those they lead.  They
aggregate the needs of their constituents, sort through them to find the
commonalities, and devise a plan to provide the greatest benefit to those same
constituents.  They present the plans to their constituents, and on approval,
direct the implementation of them.  Leaders have a number of responsibilities -
to see the greater picture, to find the course that will provide not the
quickest relief, but the most effective, to satisfy every element in their
constituency either through implementation of approved plans or by finding ways
to provide some relief for those whose needs can't be met, to keep the lines of
communication open, and to safeguard their constituents from excessive
restrictions imposed by outside forces

"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and
to protect its free expression should be our first object."
Thomas Jefferson

In the US, our elected employees need to start listening to their constituency
once more, to open the lines of communication with them, to get to know the
people they are representing.   Since it isn't likely the politicians will
change, it must perforce be us who change.  We need to communicate with our
elected employees, resume our supervisory position.  We can do that through
handwritten letters (still the most effective method because many of our elected
employees are apparently living in pre-internet and possibly even pre-telephonic
times when it comes to communication) , through face-to-face meetings (possible
in smaller electorates like city mayor, and even with one's state
representatives), and then through phone calls and emails. 

Our government is "our" government.  We are ultimately the ones in control of
it, no matter how bleak things look right now.  It is our will that forms it. 
We've kind of slacked off on that by focusing our will on trivial things like
American Idol, but it wouldn't be difficult to infuse politics with interest.

Our media, if they were willing to do it, could make politics a focal point of
our lives very easily.  At the moment, when political events appear on TV or the
radio, it's always presented in dull and boring formats.  People tune out after
a while because the current formats of speech, debate, or interview are - less
than riveting among all the other choices offered for viewing, like American
Idol, or Hell's Kitchen, or You're Fired.  Personally, I don't find these shows
appealing so much as humiliating, but the format would be much more informative
and interesting than our common political presentations.

Consider:  Potential elected employees would compete in various areas with
critiquing by a panel of ordinary Americans.  They'd have to - in word and deed
- convince this panel that they are the best candidate for the position.  They'd
be able to offer videos of their past performances if they have been an elected
employee in the past.  They'd have tasks to perform - with goals and set
resources, and be judged on their accomplishment of those tasks.  The candidates
could be in communication with their potential constituency via websites, email,
chatrooms, and more.  The panel would pull random questions from these venues to
ask during the "judging" process.  And then the audience could vote candidates
off or keep them on. The winner on the show would be the one who accomplishes
all the tasks and survives to the end.

Then, there'd be the actual vote for the office following the show.  A person
who did well, but was voted off or eliminated in the show might still win the
election, in the same way that some of the participants in those reality shows
who were eliminated went on to do far better than the winners of the shows.

Our current political party system would change - and I find this a good thing -
because the smaller parties would be an on equal footing with the dominant
parties.  It would make politics interesting and dynamic once more.  It's
stagnated for far too long.

Yes, it would be a spectacle, but is it really any worse than our current method
of voting for people because they are the lesser of two evils, or abstaining
from voting altogether because we have no candidates we can trust, no one who
exhibits true leadership potential?

We don't have the ability any longer for old political methods to work - the
meet-and-greets are restricted any more, many voters can't gain access to them. 
The fundraisers are prohibitively expensive for the average voter.  The
televised debates are often boring and rarely provide any real information.  The
ads are misleading and full of mudslinging.

Americans feel disenfranchised from politics.  I hear and read a lot of people
saying they don't vote anymore because it doesn't matter.  Their vote doesn't
count.  And even if it did count, the politician would just do whatever he
wanted to do anyway.  Our current president is such a shining example of that -
in spite of the fact that most Americans want stem cell research, he
vetoed the bill again.  In spite of the fact that most Americans want us to
withdraw from the war our President started, he's going to "stay
the course" [5] no matter what the cost in lives, families, ideals,
reputation, or money.

A leader listens to the people they are leading.  When leaders stop listening to
their constituents, it causes all sorts of problems.  The leader becomes a
dictator, demanding attention and forcing through their personal agendas at the
expense of everyone else.  The constituency becomes disgruntled and apathetic. 
Before long, we aren't governed by the majority any more, we're governed by the
majority of those who participate in our government - and those aren't always
the people who have the best interests of our nation at heart.

There are so many potential leaders in America who are excluded by our current
methods of politicking.  Maybe a reality competition elimination type show would
allow us to find these people and vote for them.  It would certainly restore
interest and humor into our politics, and it would allow us to feel as if we
have power over our government and lives once more.

[1] I didn't coin the term, it is used among unions and Australia; I just
applied it to politicians.
[2] Immigration Flashcards - scroll down to the
flash card to Question 89, that asks "What kind of government do we have?" - the
answer is "A republic".  Also Benjamin Franklin, when asked what kind of
government we'd created just after the signing of the Constitution, replied "A
republic, if we can keep it."  And Article IV, Section 4 of our very own
Constitution states, ""guarantees to every state in this union a republican form
of government"
[3] said by former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis - and even he didn't
understand the difference between a democracy and a republic.
[4] a democracy is determined entirely by a majority vote, a republic has a
charter to protect the basic rights that can't be altered by a simple majority
vote.  - WiseGeeks
[5] He may have dropped the phrase, but not the intent.