ELECTING A LEADER

ELECTING A LEADER


What does it mean to elect a good leader? Who decides who the leader will be? In the United States, the most powerful leader is the President. There are numerous other important publically elected leaders. There are many privately elected corporate leaders who possess influence and power greater that many public leaders. What characteristics must a great leader have to be great? Character, charisma, strength of personality, a history of overcoming adversity, a combination of one or more? Is greatness judged only after a leader leaves the scene, or is it possible for one to be viewed as a “can’t miss” great leader prior to election? Private industry recruits “can’t miss” new hires every year, and are right on many occasions. Certainly this occurs in sports. Baseball teams are paying millions today just for the right to talk to a prospect, without even knowing if they can obtain a signature on the bottom line.

In American history virtually all great leaders were so declared only with the passage of time. The exceptions were war leaders, Presidents Washington and Eisenhower. These men were great leaders in the minds of the electorate upon entry into office. A brief review of their background made the obvious, obvious. General Washington was the defacto government of the United States from 1775-1781. He won only one battle, yet was the embodiment of the strength when there was only weakness, spirit when there was only depression, nationalism when there was only division, When the Constitution was drafted, the delegates at the Convention could not define the office of the President in the final document. What the delegates knew however was that Washington was going to be [reluctantly] the first president, and that was sufficient. President Eisenhower was selected over all other Generals to be the Supreme Commander in Europe. His “personality” would permit other generals to work together. Americans alive at the time remember Ike’s smile. Getting the greatest egos to work as a team of generals was no easy task. His first election campaign was going slowly until he declared: “I will go to Korea”. In that statement, and nothing else, the American electorate “recognized” leadership, and elected Eisenhower president. The other generals in American history who became President did not compare to Washington and Eisenhower. While they were leaders in battle, they were not leaders in life and living. Consequently they were not perceived to be leaders off the battlefield.

Our great country once again is faced with the need to select a leader to fill the office of President. Blinded by the great divisions triggered by the Southern based Republican takeover in 1994 ,the land has torn itself apart. With politically bankrupt leadership the Republican party
ran a high tech, narrow based, religious-gun-oil campaign and won the national election in 2000. The executive branch became occupied by persons devoid of the characteristics described above. Congress, run by moral misfits, who finally were removed from office in the 2006 congressional election, has caused the country to become insolvent at levels never before known in history. The middle class has been set back 30 years. The divide between the wealthiest 2% and the rest of the population has never been greater. Less college grads are going to graduate schools in science, math, engineering because the national government has cut back on scholarships and funding to colleges and universities. All domestic programs has been cut back due to the Iraq war, a war which history will condemn, as will all future sane Americans.

The American people in the next election must demand that the next president possess basic leadership abilities: foresight, initiative, command, strength, skill, dedication to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a rule of law.

The four (4) overwhelming subjects that are out of control threatening to subsume our nation are: (1) national security, war and peace (2) fiscal integrity, national deficits (3) closing the divide between red and blue states at a time of national crisis.(4) the persistent lack of a national energy plan designed to make us independent of foreign oil. The past congressional elections revealed that removal of Karl Rove, Roe v Wade, Guns, Gays from dominating positions in the national election permits the electorate the ability to vote on the issues of corruption, war and peace, the economy in a rational manner indicating that the red-blue divide narrowing is a possibility.

The Democratic candidates are:
Sen. Obama
Sen Biden
Sen Clinton
Sen. Dodd
Gov. Richardson
Rep Kucinich
Gov Vilisack
Sen Edwards
Rev Sharpton
Gen. Clark


Who among the above candidates have demonstrated proven leadership capabilities to qualify as being classified a “can’t miss” leader for President of the United States, capable of undertaking the subjects of national security, war and peace, fiscal integrity, national deficits.

A first observation to be made is that “being first” is not a leadership characteristic, but a derivative one. If one would become the first gay vice-president, one would assume it would be because of the person’s ability not because of sexual orientation. The fact that Rev. Sharpton is a black candidate is not relevant when competence is the issue. Sen. Clinton being the first “first lady to run for president” an interesting but worthless fact. The issue is the qualifications of Sen. Clinton, not the fact that she was married to a former president. If Hillary Clinton was not married to Bill Clinton, would Hillary Clinton be a relevant candidate for any office? If her marriage was not relevant then emphasis would be upon her skills as a competent lawyer in Little Rock, her career as a founder of a national organization for children, her efforts on behalf of women world wide, her position as a staff attorney on the Watergate Senate legal staff. She also chaired the National Health Insurance Plan in 1993 which failed.. Her career sounds similar to that of Sen. Edwards, who also was a significant and successful trial attorney and championed the rights of injured children. His Senate career was brief. Sen. Clinton’s Senate career also has been brief.


In the important area of national security, Sen. Biden is knowledgeable is this area. General Clark spent his adult life leading men in battle for his country. Knowledge plus experience, plus diplomacy possessed by General Clark is superior to Sen. Biden’s knowledge. Sen. Edwards, Sharpton, Kucinich, Dodd, Clinton, Obama, are dwarfed by Gen. Clark’s life experience, coupled with his education and training at West Point, Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford, and commands in Vietnam, the Balkans, NATO Supreme Command. In the field of foreign affairs, Gov. Richardson has served our country like few in many decades have. Our country is a better place because of his service. While his skills as a political representative are complementary to General Clark’s they do not approach the leadership experience of General Clark’s. One can never forget that General Clark commanded the only war participated in by the United States where the U.S. did not lose one airman, sailor, or soldier. This is so even though the Republican party did everything it could to demean and disrupt the Kosovo operation in order to embarrass President Clinton.

Concerning the economy, President Bush did to the economy what General Sherman did to Atlanta during the Civil War. While the Republicans were looting the treasury, giving away the public’s money in conference committee meetings by the hundred’s of millions of dollars, subsidizing the oil companies with tax credits while cutting student loans, the President did not exercise one veto. There will never be another time in our history when our country’s treasury will be so financially plundered. The question is whether anyone is qualified to straighten out the nations economy after the greatest fiscal mismanagement ever experienced by a government in the western world. Through lack of accountability, billions have been “lost” in Iraq. “No one knows where the money went” is a common theme in a department of the Bush Administration. Katrina has provided more money to the crooks than to the victims under the “sound leadership” of the Bush Administration.

Emphasis on the economy must be upon growth, not cutting expenses and raising taxes. Growth must be spurred once again by initial focus on Education as was done by President Clinton. Over the next decade we must turn out more graduate students in science, math, engineering, environmental studies. Government-Industry partnerships must be formed for research and development in alternative sources of energy. As President Clinton did in1992 when he called together the great leaders of industry to help solve the health crisis, we must call together the great leaders in the energy fields to develop a national energy plan that the nation can invest in and create an infra structure to extricate ourselves from the wretched evils of the Middle East. We must have a President that possesses the leadership characteristics of command, strength, skill, initiative and foresight to lead this energy plan. In this regard, stature of the President as an individual would be of paramount importance. A national energy plan must be lead by one who does not carry political baggage. Sen. Clinton rightly or wrongly, [undoubtedly wrongly] is unquestionably disliked by a sizeable portion of the country. The energy interests are a formidable foe with vast power in the Congress. Their interest are not allied with the interests of the United States. Petroleum and gas interests profit from chaos, war, economic dislocation. The economic welfare of the middle class, children, universal health care, $4.00 gallon gasoline bring laughter in the Petro board rooms. Speeches by Senators Obama, Clinton, Kucinich, Vilisack, Edwards, Rev. Sharpton would not bring fear to these interests. Have in mind that this country has not been able to develop a national energy plan since 1973 when the first oil embargo took place.

The next election is not to be determined by whether a candidate is “all things to all people”. The next President must be the real thing. All candidates have an issue. All have a constituency. All are qualified, if for no other reason than all are over 35 and born in the United States, which are the qualifications in the Constitution. The Bush Presidency added other qualifications in the mind of the public. These qualifications are: (1) allegiance to the Bill of Rights, (2) signing statements cannot exempt the President from being bound by legislation passed by Congress absent a declaration of war or suspension of habeas corpus, and, (3) in addition to preserving and protecting the Constitution, the President must understand he is bound by the provisions of the Constitution. Unless the President can grasp these rules, he or she is mentally disqualified from holding the office. All of the above candidates are qualified.

The United States electorate must elect Wesley Clark President in 2008



THUMBSUCKER
FEBRUARY 1, 2007