Good Leadership

During a presidential debate we talk a good deal about leadership and leadership qualities. Historians have often used the criteria of rating presidents as those who got things done; got their way, enacted the programs they wanted enacted. It is a very pragmatic definition of leadership and, in my opinion, a poor one.

Ronald E. Riggio, PhD wrote an article on the Psychology Today blog that I think explains leadership far better than the historian’s criteria which is also shared with a great many citizens and business folk, and socially aware folk. Following is Riggio’s criteria:

First, do the right things vs. simply getting things done. This gets at the value of a thing to the nation or organization, not just that it happened.

Second, leaders are to be responsible and ethical not breaking or fudging rules but treating people fairly and not lying, cheating, or stealing to get ahead.

1.    These leaders limit collateral damage; they don’t abuse their followers, they don’t destroy the environment, waste resources to achieve a goal.

2.   They develop their followers, building up the leadership skills and talents of others.

3.   They leave the organization better than they found it. This is about sustainability. They plan ahead for future leadership and create hope for the future.

These are qualities I saw as being very important in church leadership, and qualities that leaders of any organization who possesses integrity and responsibility embrace. It is the stuff of John F. Kennedy’s book, Profiles in Courage. And sadly is often lacking in the political scene.

Some see these qualities as unimportant or less important that the pragmatic standard of just accomplishing a goal. Using that criteria, Gandhi, Martin, Luther King, Jr., FDR  were effective leaders. But using that criterion you would also have to include Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

It is hard to read the hearts of those running for office today, and the tenor or today’s negative but effective campaigns do not foster good leadership, no matter what people claim. And we have to question our own values that embrace negativity, name calling, demonization and plain bigotry that we bring to the political debate.

I think it is clear that from a pragmatic standpoint, Romney won the first debate last night. But I would not go as far as to say he projects the best leadership qualities for our country. You need to take in a much wider picture of that and see which programs the candidates embrace and whether they have the best interests of all Americans at heart in them.

If you go to the fact checking pages you will find both candidates playing loose with the facts, some by presupposition and some just by plain misinformation. But, as I said, it is hard to read the heart of a candidate, though in my estimation Obama comes out far ahead in the qualities of sound leadership as described above. Others will see that differently as is their right. But I would ask all of us to check our hearts and our minds and do the necessary work to check out the beliefs of our candidates and whether they show great leadership.

A Chicken in Every Pot

Campaign slogans/promises have been popular for ages. One of the great ones is the promise of a chicken in every pot. Most think it was Herbert Hoover who said this in 1920; he didn’t. But it was attributed to him and to each president who served between 1920 and 1936. The Republican party did use it in their 1928 campaign along with “and a car in every garage (or backyard).” Promises promises. [Remember in 1929 there was the stock market crash and the upper 1/10th of the upper 1% of the country control half the wealth just like now.]

The phrase actually comes from the 17^th century when Henry IV of France expressed the wish that all his peasants could have a chicken in his pot every Sunday. What a despotic softy.

It has been said that the Tea Party wants to take us back to the 19^th century where there was very little government regulation of the market and the markets leap up and down like children bouncing on a new mattress.

Perhaps Romney has his eyes set on the 17^th century, with even wanting two chickens in every peasant’s pot. Lowering the top income tax rate to 25% is certainly in a good step in the direction of the 17^th century.

Romney said during the debate that we are spending 42% of our economy on government. Now he thinks that is a bad thing. But I would actually like it to be much higher; more money spent on education, infrastructure, care of those in need, retirement programs, social safety nets, research and development of technologies to increase our productivity and make us better world wide competitors, guaranteed health care for each citizen and things of that nature. A chicken would be nice but I’d like a lot more beef. The way things are going the 1% are enjoying filet mignon, champagne, hummingbird tongues and other gastronomical delights while we look at a chicken once a week. Yep, good old 17^th century and Romney and his buddies think they are Henry IV and are having “peasants under glass.”

Heinz Catsup Wins the Debate

Okay, I admit it, my prognostication for the debate was wrong. The question parts I wrote about were largely unanswered as I thought, but the outcome was different than predicted that each candidate’s supporters will think their candidate won. Well, 25% of Obama’s did that, but for the most part everyone agrees that President Obama got his butt kicked. There I said it. I don’t know why the usually eloquent and clear thinking man I’m used to didn’t show up but he didn’t.

On the other hand Romney stepped up to the plate and flat stomped on it (I love to mix my metaphors.) His arguments remind me of the Heinz commercials. Folk who use Heinz catsup know it is tasty stuff but if you try to get it out of the bottle it is a pain in the arse. Heinz seizing upon this malady advertised it as a wonderful attribute; so slow and tasty; no it still is a pain in the arse to get out of the bottle unless it is in an obviously democratic squeeze bottle container. Romney Heinzed it (I also love creating words.)

Romney was absolutely Reaganesque in his ability to say things that are impossible to accomplish and convince people he could do it. Remember Reagan promised to lower taxes, increase military spending and improve everyone’s income, balance the budget etc which was impossible and didn’t happen; surprise surprise. [That was the beginning of the massive transfer of wealth from the middle classes to the upper 1%.] Romney made the same impossible statements and says “trust me it will work” and of course, it cannot possibly work. The only thing we know for sure is the rich will get richer. And didn’t you just love how he twisted the trickledown theory into a government maneuver? You just have to give him points for that.

For those who like lists for why Romney won the debate, the Washington Post gave a good one. 1. He controlled the format, he was a master rebuttler. 2. Obama seemed frazzled; the always upbeat Obama was decidedly uncomfortable and it showed. 3. The politics of preemption; Romney knowing he was going to get hammered for raising taxes on the middle class made it seem plausible that it would be Obama raising taxes on them – slick. 4. Obama didn’t get his big talking points in; where was the auto bailout, the sleaziness of Bain Capital and all that? 5. The expectations were low; folk expected Obama to win significantly and Romney was supposed to goof up; Romney won the curve expectations. 6. Romney avoided a stumble; for a guy who frequently suffers from hoof and mouth disease he seemed entirely cured.

I will make no predictions about the vice presidential debates as both are impossible to predict as to what they will do; besides their debate won’t make any difference anyway.

One last comment, I think that Obama occasionally suffers from over accommodation. Some folk are accommodating and others not. Throughout his presidency Obama seems to have tried to play fair with his political opponents and has been bitten on the gluteus maximus each time. Or maybe he just took a nap. 

A Hometown Political Solution to Extremist Gridlock…

Sane Juan came up with this solution in my hometown for an end to gridlock. His suggestion is that you collect all the local Tea Party supporters, the NRA leaders, the Council members who took the oath that they would have no issue other than throwing out the mayor, all those who support the Austrian School of Supply Side Economics, All the PAC groups and the Kookie brothers, the oligarchyists and anarchists and export them to the nearby town of Texasaloosa and let them secede from the union. Oh yes, they also believe that the 1% that have half the wealth in my hometown can go too but they can only take 1% of their holdings.

He further suggested that when the candidates run for mayor next time they can campaign for only one month prior to the election, place clear position statements in the local paper, have one debate at the local high school, and if they are caught in any intentional lies they are subject to libel and slander laws and must go directly to jail without passing Go and collecting $200 which the tax payers will cough up to pay for the total election expenses.

Ah that Juan, always thinking.

Political Debate Prognostication

I suppose I will be guilted into watching the Presidential Candidates debate this evening. Ho hum. These fellas will have spent countless hours preparing themselves for the arduous task but will we learn anything.

Will Romney actually give any particulars about he plans to accomplish what he says he’s going to do? Will he explain how he will increase 12 million jobs? Will he tell us what tax loopholes he will close and if they will affect him and those like him? Will he explain now on earth a reduction of the top tax rate of 25% can possibly increase government revenue? Will he tell us how he can increase military spending and reduce the deficit ala Ronald Reagan (who couldn’t do it either)? Will he show us exactly how he will grow the middle class (meaning change the wealth distribution in the country)? Will he show how a profit based businessman will lead us to more efficient government? (I used to believe more in capitalism and government cooperation when I was young and more naïve.) Will Romney come across and a real human being identifiable to the middle class.  Will his makeup fall off and we find a resurrected Ronald Reagan? Will he say anything of import?

Will the President explain why he didn’t really go big in the bailout so that he would actually grow the economy and not just save some big business? Will he talk about safe guards built into such future undertakings, if heaven forbid they need to take place, where the CEO’s and others don’t make out like bandits and public expense? Will he show us how and will he pledge to rein in big business and special interest PAC groups from having undue sway in the political process? Will he propose legislation making it illegal for ex-politicians to become lobbyists and the like? Will he show commitment and methods to break up Wall Street banks so that cannot be too big to fail? Will he show how we can actually increase the income of average workers? Will he show how he will deal with the environmental issues of the day to make our world safer? Will he support a carbon tax or a “cap and trade” program? Finally, will he show how he can kick a bit of extreme right wing butt so congress can get something done?

Well, a fella can dream. My guess is that Obama will come out as the more appealing and best informed and the most middle class oriented because he is. My guess is that Mitt will not fall on his face, he will give a few more specifics but not enough to show how his ideology will actually work. (Nobody can explain trickledown, supply side economics as effective because it isn’t.)

Finally my guess is that it will be like the proverbial ballgame which each will have their fans who will declare victory despite what is said. And all the political pundits will explain to us what each one said with Readers Digest versions of the understanding of the debate.

I’d just love to be wrong about all this. Remember, tonight’s debate is on national issues, then we get to listen again to international debate; more fun and game with Dick and Jane or rather Obama and Romney.

On second thought, perhaps I should have titled this article, “Political Halitosis” but there is enough of that on Facebook.

Polly the Pollster in My Hometown

Not long ago in my hometown Miss Polly Prevaricator set up a card table at the corner of Market and Main Streets in my hometown (this is the center of town). As folk passed by her she said she was taking a poll and then asked them if they intended to vote for Romney or Obama in the oncoming election and then marked the results on a clipboard. To those who replied, “Obama” she wished them a good day and thanking them for participating in her poll. Those who replied they were voting for Romney, she thanked and then handed them a voter registration form so they could indeed vote for Romney.

---

Now many of you know I write hometown stories that have no real basis in fact but do make a point. As a matter a fact my hometown is so small you don’t need to register to vote. However, there is a point to this story as it is taking place all over the country and is GOP strategy and a goodly number of these cases have been taken to court; the Voter Registration Fraud Scandal. The GOP is paying big bucks for this tactic; a $3 million registration program was scuttled last week for fraudulently registration forms were discovered by a firm hired by the RNC to sign up Republican voters in Florida North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada.

If you’re interested you can go to Brad’s Blog, the Los Angeles Times, NBC  news, CBS news, and a slew of other places.

The Details of How the Romney/Ryan Tax Plan Works

I would suggest going here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/paul-ryan-mitt-romney-tax-plan_n_1932167.html?igoogle=1 to seek why there is nothing in this article.