Posted on Nov 19, 2018
Why do you believe or not believe that there is a crisis of leadership in this country?
4.23K
31
33
2
2
0
I watched an interview that Stanley McChrystal (Retired) gave to yahoo news a couple of weeks ago. The most remarkable part of this interview was that the interviewer was an anonymous journalist on yahoo staff.
The interview sparked a mental gymnastics match in my mind. I started arguing with myself about why I thought there was not a crisis, and then countered all of my arguments with reasons why I thought there was a crisis. I can tell you that the argument persists. To add insult to injury, I started arguing with myself about why I believed the argument about crisis of leadership and the crisis of followership in this country persists!
Much of the discussion of leadership in this country centers around the values that leaders hold and the values that followers hold. We can say that if there is a crisis of leadership in this country, there is also a crisis of followership in this country because the values of leaders and the values of followers are not aligned. Leaders need followers to follow and followers need leaders to lead. This discovery of knowledge begs another question: why are the values of leaders and the values of followers not aligned?
In the American system of government, democracy and egalitarianism are values and efficiency and effectiveness are values with more moderate viewpoints in between both poles. This concept to some extent and at least sometimes helps me to put American politics into perspective.
I wanted to include egalitarianism and effectiveness tags in this post also.
The interview sparked a mental gymnastics match in my mind. I started arguing with myself about why I thought there was not a crisis, and then countered all of my arguments with reasons why I thought there was a crisis. I can tell you that the argument persists. To add insult to injury, I started arguing with myself about why I believed the argument about crisis of leadership and the crisis of followership in this country persists!
Much of the discussion of leadership in this country centers around the values that leaders hold and the values that followers hold. We can say that if there is a crisis of leadership in this country, there is also a crisis of followership in this country because the values of leaders and the values of followers are not aligned. Leaders need followers to follow and followers need leaders to lead. This discovery of knowledge begs another question: why are the values of leaders and the values of followers not aligned?
In the American system of government, democracy and egalitarianism are values and efficiency and effectiveness are values with more moderate viewpoints in between both poles. This concept to some extent and at least sometimes helps me to put American politics into perspective.
I wanted to include egalitarianism and effectiveness tags in this post also.
Leadership
Democracy
Efficiency
Country
Values
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 6
2
2
0
I think that there are two problems reflected in politics:
1. The people who run for office frequently appear to be narcissists. They are committed only to their personal advancement and enrichment. Any ideological or institutional alignment that they may proclaim is likely to be nothing but marketing bunk.
2. Most of the American public outsources its opinions to the leaders of their respective political tribes. Whether it is left-wingers getting their news from Vox or right-wingers getting their news from Fox.
Factors 1 and 2 combine to produce a political landscape from the Jerry Springer Show. Years ago, I used to listen to talk radio. On one episode of the Neal Boortz show, he asked a caller who claimed to have read Atlas Shrugged some questions about the book. It was pretty clear that she hadn't actually read the book. However, she knew that it was supposed to be an important book. She knew that the host of the show liked it. But she hadn't read it. Years before that, I used to listen to the Rush Limbaugh Show, years before the age of Trump. At that time I think he was a bit milder. He used to have an economist named Walter Williams fill in for him. Callers would get on the air and be very enthusiastic about being on the side of Rush Limbaugh and what they called conservatives. But I had the distinct impression that few of these callers would ever crack a book like Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, or Free to Choose by Milton Friedman. Because of that, I don't think they actually understood what Williams was talking about. I don't think they were actually interested in his ideas as much as aligning with his side of the political spectrum. (I think Walter Williams is a very smart guy.) Not only does much of the talk radio followership seem to align with Republicans mostly out of an almost sports-fan like affinity, but they don't seem to understand the principles underlying what American conservatism used to be.
I was never a lefty, but most of the people I interactive with nowadays are definite left-wingers. They are operating on some really far-out ideas about conservatives. The Twitter fits that Trump has, don't help any. To say THE LEAST.
I think America would choose better leaders if they would step away from the party line a bit, and go read some books.
1. The people who run for office frequently appear to be narcissists. They are committed only to their personal advancement and enrichment. Any ideological or institutional alignment that they may proclaim is likely to be nothing but marketing bunk.
2. Most of the American public outsources its opinions to the leaders of their respective political tribes. Whether it is left-wingers getting their news from Vox or right-wingers getting their news from Fox.
Factors 1 and 2 combine to produce a political landscape from the Jerry Springer Show. Years ago, I used to listen to talk radio. On one episode of the Neal Boortz show, he asked a caller who claimed to have read Atlas Shrugged some questions about the book. It was pretty clear that she hadn't actually read the book. However, she knew that it was supposed to be an important book. She knew that the host of the show liked it. But she hadn't read it. Years before that, I used to listen to the Rush Limbaugh Show, years before the age of Trump. At that time I think he was a bit milder. He used to have an economist named Walter Williams fill in for him. Callers would get on the air and be very enthusiastic about being on the side of Rush Limbaugh and what they called conservatives. But I had the distinct impression that few of these callers would ever crack a book like Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, or Free to Choose by Milton Friedman. Because of that, I don't think they actually understood what Williams was talking about. I don't think they were actually interested in his ideas as much as aligning with his side of the political spectrum. (I think Walter Williams is a very smart guy.) Not only does much of the talk radio followership seem to align with Republicans mostly out of an almost sports-fan like affinity, but they don't seem to understand the principles underlying what American conservatism used to be.
I was never a lefty, but most of the people I interactive with nowadays are definite left-wingers. They are operating on some really far-out ideas about conservatives. The Twitter fits that Trump has, don't help any. To say THE LEAST.
I think America would choose better leaders if they would step away from the party line a bit, and go read some books.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
The Fountainhead is a great read. I watched Atlas Shrugged simply because I didn't want to sit threw another 700 page novel!
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Yeah, read that one long time ago. Was surprised how much it intermingled architecture and politics until I read more about the history of modern architecture.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Perrotto
I do not believe POTUS is toxic, I believe he truly wants America to be dominant, focus on American interests, and to stop the slide of American wealth being exported, and other countries poverty imported. This insane idea that because we have wealth, that we are obligated to share it with lesser countries, to the detriment of our own citizens, is ludicrous. To have the US contribute 4% of it's GNP to NATO, while Germany contributes 1% and receives 60% of its energy from Russia, the big bad "WOLF" that Europe fears, is Trump being spot on. Renegotiating sub par trade deals, to include Tarriffs, is the exact thing a leader should be doing for his citizens. He answers to his citizens, not the rest of the world, or the other leaders. He was elected to do what he promised to do, and so far, he HAS tried to implement his campaign promises.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
SrA John Monette
this should be a multi-partisan country CPT (Join to see) SPC Margaret Higgins
the 2 party system has not worked in a long time. it is time for a viable alternative to democrat and republican
the 2 party system has not worked in a long time. it is time for a viable alternative to democrat and republican
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SrA John Monette - I've said on past posts from a few years back that I am satisfied with the two party system. I am sure that a multi party system has some benefits and if you know of them, I'd like to know of the costs as well. Thanks for the comment.
(1)
(0)
SrA John Monette
CPT (Join to see) - the only cost that I have seen/heard is that people believe they are taking votes from one of the major parties. they would rather vote for R or D than possibly take a vote away from the one they think will win
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google