Watching the Bush presidency implode this summer, I can’t help but ponder what lessons are to be drawn for us when choosing our the next President. While a leader with bad ideas is a disaster, it is equally true that a man (or woman) with great plans who lacks the leadership to implement those plans can also be a disaster. So as my daughter and I evaluate candidates this primary season, we’ll be looking for two things: great ideas and great leadership. I fear it is a rare combination.
The last 6+ years has left me a bit cynical about leadership. “Resolve” has become synonymous with stubbornness and close-mindedness. “Leadership” has become a code word for secrecy and privilege. “Alternative measures” now equates to "the ends justify the means". George would rather be wrong but consistent. Just don't call him a flip flopper.
Shouldn't leadership and stubbornness should be mutually exclusive? Being resolute may be, in George's world, the opposite of flip-flopping, but values can and do change over time. Circumstances change. Why do we punish this evolution of thinking in our leaders? Oh yeah, that's right - because it wins elections. Please don’t hold me responsible for an opinion I held 20 years ago, even if I felt so strongly about it that I put it in writing. I, for one, want a candidate whose stands on issues has evolved as times have changed.
On another topic:
I believe that W needs a Nancy Reagan in his life to protect himself from himself. Alberto Gonzales is an albatross around his neck - can't he see that? If Alberto Gonzales served in the Reagan administration, Nancy would have seen to it by now that he was gone, banished back to Texas, unable to continue wounding George’s already dying presidency. The loyalty is touching - but clearly misguided. Laura, step it up and help the poor guy!!!
JS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment