Politicians are rarely leaders. In fact, I would argue that it is not the ability to govern that gets and keeps politicians elected; it is sheer competence. Leaders are innovative and, sometimes not on purpose, take calculated risks. These leaders stray from what was and ingeniously create what is.
Washington could have became King, but instead, he laid the foundation for the Office of the President. Jefferson doubled the size of the United States and understood that it was the hard-working farmer, not the businessman, that supported this democracy. Teddy Roosevelt used mass communications to inspire a nation. FDR, during our greatest economic crisis, used the people as a main resource to fix a country; not the government. Lincoln's boldness was the glue that kept the Union together. Kennedy understood the need to cut taxes on American businesses. Reagan, in an era of big, liberal government, went against the grain to cut taxes, end inflation and a Cold War, create jobs, and direct the country on what would be over 25 years of economic prosperity.
Barack Obama is not a leader. He is not innovative (and no, a White House web chat doesn't cut it). He does not take calculated risks for the good of the country. Mr. Obama follows a cliche mold when it comes to Washington politics. And, perhaps, the most dangerous idea of his is that he is willing to listen to ALL ideas. Intellectualism and "Divine" rhetoric can only carry one so far; therefore, it is the traditionalist ideology that paves the true path to progress. It defines roles and laws. It is unwavering and consistent. Mistakes are easily righted. Prosperity is often a byproduct.
Before the economic crisis, the 2008 presidential campaign was a dead heat. However, it was Obama's cool, determined persona that drew people into a political obsession. Like moths to a street light, the American people clung to an image and consoling words. The aftermath is still not known. However, in only two months, the American people can clearly see they have been duped. Conservatives, moderates, and even some Democrats can (only reluctantly) say "I told you so."
Trillions of projected debt that throws money at the problem and sweeps it under the rug. Unethical cabinet nominations that have proved a sense of incompetence. Reversals of old policies. A foreign policy that makes our enemies laugh in delight. Instead of confidence, a lesson in pessimism.
What does this say for the reality of our situation? We elected a political robot that sounds great (beyond the pessimism), but doesn't have a clue if the sky is blue.
2 comments:
Hey Ryan. This is an interesting post. No, politicians are generally not leaders, but presidents are leaders and they get elected by appealing to Americans that they will be good leaders. Presidents lead (or are supposed to), they are the chief executive.
Leaders are not always innovative, and often times leaders are the most conservative of a community, business, or government office. Innovation comes from those few individuals that elect to take great risks for uncertain gains. Few presidents are truly innovators, electing to make use of proven theories and practices instead of blazing into uncharted territory. Very few of our presidents could accurately be called innovators - including most of those you list in your post.
I think you have a strange reading of history on some of these guys, especially Washington possibly becoming King. The Constitution had already written, there were in fact limits on executive power. Yes he did pave the way for a relatively limited executive (which has been trampled upon by presidents after him), but the likelihood of him being able to gain some sort of largely authoritarian rule over the new nation was insignificant. FDR did in fact use people as a main resource to fix the economy but to say he didn’t use the government is historical revisionism. FDR planned and executed one of the largest expansions of the US government (if not the single largest) in our history. He spent government money (deficit spending) to stimulate the creation of jobs and raising of incomes. When that didn’t work he hired Americans (with government money) to build government infrastructure in a massive Great Depression-era stimulus package. I find it very strange to argue he didn’t attempt to use the government, but instead ordinary Americans to end the Depression. It seems to me like he used the government heavy-handedly, expanding welfare, unemployment, government agencies, bureaucracies, and infrastructure. Also, nothing Reagan was a very good president, and a fine leader – no doubt about it. But he did not end the Cold War. He was in the right place at the right time to preside at a time when the Soviet economy finally crumbled from decades of cracks.
I agree with you that Obama is not innovative. No, he’s not innovative (his campaign was) but very few presidents are. A president’s job is not to be innovative, it’s to lead. Geitner’s bailout plan (the “toxic asset”, public-private plan) is a calculated risk because it’s largely unpopular with Americans and top economists. He’s doing it because he thinks it will be the most effective way to bring economic relief. I personally disagree with him but this decision is obviously a calculated risk by the President.
I’m a bit confused by your “traditionalist ideology” bit that paves the true path to progress. By definition isn’t “traditionalist ideology” inherently counter-innovative? Traditionalist ideologies are unwavering and consistent, just as you say - but that is pretty much the opposite of innovation. Just look at history. Traditionalist ideology of Ancient Athenian society, Ancient Egyptian society, the Renaissance, the traditionalists Galileo fought with when he made the “far-left” assertion that the Earth did indeed revolve around the Sun, the Enlightenment, the Victorian era, Nazi ideology – these are all wildly different “traditional ideologies.” Even modern “traditional ideologies” are massively different. What is the traditional ideology of Islam? Some would contend that the fight against Islamic terrorism is just this – a culture war against a traditional ideology. How about Christianity? With 2000 years of history, what is the “traditional ideology” of Christianity? Our traditions and ideologies are constantly changing as we revise our beliefs with new scientific and philosophical theories provided by the greatest thinkers humanity has to offer.
Josh,
You seem to be implying the generic, broad definition of innovation. However, innovation is not based, fully, on the creation of new ideas. Innovation can be an old idea directed or implemented in a new way. With that said, I strongly disagree with your statement concerning innovation and the leaders I listed. Each, in his own, "broke the political mold" and creatively set new standards for old ideas.
Barack Obama's campaign was innovative, you're right. However, it is ashame (almost scandalous) that the American people bought into his empty rhetoric. Also, Barack Obama's SPENDING (bailout included) bill can hardly be considered a calculated risk. It is hard-lined liberalism and simply seeks to accomplish what the Democrats have tried (and failed) to accomplish for over 40 years. Barack Obama has done nothing calculated or innovative in any respect to governing (except using a telepromtor every time he speaks...that's pretty innovative..we've all seen the horrible babble without one).
He has dangerously overextended the government to the likes we have never seen. Government needs to get out of the way and promote personal responsibility. This growth, and the mentality behind it, is Marxist (and we see how that has historically worked).
A quote based on recent developments:
"France...rolled with exceeding smoothness down hill, making paper money and spending it." -A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens
Reality:
"On Wednesday he [Bernanke] announced the Fed will print money to buy U.S. Treasuries in unheard-of amounts - nearly $1.2 trillion." -Investor's Business Daily, March 19, 2009
It is a slow downward spiral, but it is downward nonetheless.
Finally, your understanding of a "traditionalist" is completely wrong. Tradtionalism helps us to understand, over time, what is true. Intellectualism, or philosophy, is an ego driven enterprise. It focuses on self wisdom rather than situational or traditional reality. In fact, I would argue that the scientific method (used often as a basis of judgement) is based on tradionalism. Tradition is the repetition of what works. Our Constitution is a great example of absolute traditionalism. It creates laws, beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. Intellectualism is the belief that one's own wisdom is "more intelligent" then what has been proven to work. It is the expansion of ideas that have, in reality, eroded our society and past societies. Traditionalism is not without fault, but it is, in fact, more progressive and innovative then intellectualism/liberalism/philosophy. "I think, therefore I am." University indoctrination.
We sometimes fail to recognize that science is also a tradition-based endeavor. Scientific experiments are verifiable because they can be repeated.
The best example of this, is your comment to my post. It is interesting that you correct my inaccuracies" and "mistakes" when it comes to my rational beliefs. However, in reality, your philosopical thought is not proven or correct. In fact, I would argue, in large, that your way of thinking has actually done more harm than good when it comes to deeds. Tradition, although brutalized by liberal thought, has in fact been consistent and progressive for the good of society.
Post a Comment