Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Ted, the first part of that sentence you were fine (except curiosity would be better suited than conviction, the latter implies a known mission whereas if you are going where no man has gone, a belief set isn't part of the equation), the last part, well, that defines a bad leader. By definition, a good leader does not risk going it alone. they have a vision, they effectively communicate it to the masses via a well-formulated plan, and then they execute. Good leaders take risks while they execute the plan. A leader is a failure, by definition, if they are ostracized by their own people. You're thinking of the Hollywood movie version of a leader who saves the day at the end 'cause he was right all along. Hurrayyyyy, the crowd cheers as the credits start to roll.
it doesn't work that way in real life.
McCain is not a leader; he is a maverick. We don't need a maverick. We need more than a cranky old 25-year tenured Senator, otherwise known as an underachiever.
|
Shauny..I thought about using the word "vision" But one has to have belief in his vision to act on it. You have to have the conviction of your vison. Bob Dylan at Newport went electric and was booed for it. Yet a year or two later everybody was electric. Bob Dylan was a cultural leader. Abe Lincoln was certainily ostracized even by members of his own cabinet, yet he stuck to his convictions and moved the ball at his own speed.
A leader is someone who guides, or shows the way to a paticular goal, the point man so to speak. Not everyone can see the light at the begining. So one has to take the risk that no one will see it, and may even disapprove.
Bill Clinton was not a leader, because he never did anything without testing the wind to see what direction it was blowing. He could have been a leader, but didn't have the sac. A tragic figure. In other words U can be President and still not be a leader. we have had care takers for Presidents.
JFK during the Cuban Missle crisis...the generals were sure pushing him to reaact with force.
TR Roosevelt....went against his own Republican Party with his Trust Busting.
FDR....knew in 1940 the USA would have to fight Germany, yet the country was oposed to that notion.
Harry Truman...recognized the state of Israel before anyother nation did. How many nations still don't recognize Israel today?
Nixon opened China, and started disarmament talks with the Soviets. That was not popular in his own Party. It is besides the point that Nixon also led the way to demonize China in the first place.
Reagan with his lower tax policies sure was pilloried even by his own VP. That set the stage a decade later for the prosperity of the 90's. And you all think it was Bill.
With this large of an economy you set the ball rolling and a decade later you see the results. As they say Rome was not built in a day.
GW Bush..Ousted Sadam, and when it went badly he kept to his course of action, revised his course and now seems to have turned around. Point being he did not cut and run, as so many have wished that he would do. If Iraq in 20 years turns out OK, there are going to be a lot of people who are going to be eating dodo.
I think GW is a good case in point of a Leader that had formulated no real plan before he led the nation into war.
I am not so sure that plan formulation is a function of leadership, it maybe the difference between a good leader and a bad leader. Hitler was a leader, he had a vision but never had a real laid out plan on how to get there. Everybody thinks that Germany during the war was run like a well oiled machine. That was not true it was run chaotically. The Luftwaffe for instance would not cooperate with the Kriegsmarine with regards to the war in the Alantic. Germany was run quite feudally under the Nazis.