Communication and Other Necessary Qualities in a President
This is a response to an excellent comment by "Michael" to my post titled 2nd Presidential debate.
Michael agrees that effective communication is an essential skill for any president. He also posits that leadership and receptivity to new and/or different ideas are similarly critical. I agree on both counts. We've all had a front row seat to the foibles of our current Miscommunicator and Chief. Ideologues, and inarticulate ones at that, do not play in a country that is essentially split down the middle politically. That is why McCain offered so much promise. He has a long record of working across the isle, of being willing to buck the party establishment, and of communicating in a straightforward fashion with the American people. Unfortunately, the Straight Talk Express has morphed into the Convoluted Convoy.
Michael states that he's walked away from the Republican Party because it lost its ability to define and clearly express its vision and why that vision is good for the country as a whole. Again, I agree with that assessment. Although I probably side more with Democrat positions than Republican, I am a very moderate Republican for two primary reasons: 1) limiting the size of government is fundamental to the long term survival/viability of the nation and our way of life; and 2) similarly, a strong national defense ensures our sovereignty. McCain was quite possibly the best manifestation of those two ideals in the Republican Party. Somewhere along the way, though, he seriously muddied the waters.
As hard as I've been on McCain, that by no means gives Obama a free pass. He has many, many troublesome characteristics/qualities that have been glossed over by a sympathetic media and because, by comparison to Bush and McCain, he is the second coming of Cicero. In many respects, McCain is (or was) the right package in the wrong wrapper; whereas Obama might be the wrong package in the right wrapper.
When evaluated against Michael's triumvirate of essential presidential characteristics: communication, leadership, and receptivity to new/different ideas, Obama, in my estimation, fails miserably in two of the three. He may very well turn out to be terrific, but to-date, we can only go by his record. It is undeniable that his years in state and federal government are remarkably devoid of any major accomplishments or even strong, memorable, passionate stands. In fact, his 129 "Present" votes while in the Illinois State Senate, many on highly charged/important issues, place his leadership and political courage in serious question. At a minimum, it certainly doesn't reconcile with this statement from his campaign announcement speech: "What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."
One could also argue that he is as much of an ideologue as Bush, albeit in a much softer and smoother package. He is a world-class listener, but I've yet to see him demonstrate a willingness to meaningfully adjust his positions based on contrary opinions. So far, he is merely adroit at giving the impression of openness without actually being open.
When/if Obama becomes President, let's hope that he couples his strong communication skills with a sincere effort to craft bipartisian solutions. Let's also hope that he develops a greater appreciation for the importance of personal responsibility and the need to control the size of our federal bureaucracy. The world's problems are too numerous and significant to solve without cooperation from all sides.
Michael agrees that effective communication is an essential skill for any president. He also posits that leadership and receptivity to new and/or different ideas are similarly critical. I agree on both counts. We've all had a front row seat to the foibles of our current Miscommunicator and Chief. Ideologues, and inarticulate ones at that, do not play in a country that is essentially split down the middle politically. That is why McCain offered so much promise. He has a long record of working across the isle, of being willing to buck the party establishment, and of communicating in a straightforward fashion with the American people. Unfortunately, the Straight Talk Express has morphed into the Convoluted Convoy.
Michael states that he's walked away from the Republican Party because it lost its ability to define and clearly express its vision and why that vision is good for the country as a whole. Again, I agree with that assessment. Although I probably side more with Democrat positions than Republican, I am a very moderate Republican for two primary reasons: 1) limiting the size of government is fundamental to the long term survival/viability of the nation and our way of life; and 2) similarly, a strong national defense ensures our sovereignty. McCain was quite possibly the best manifestation of those two ideals in the Republican Party. Somewhere along the way, though, he seriously muddied the waters.
As hard as I've been on McCain, that by no means gives Obama a free pass. He has many, many troublesome characteristics/qualities that have been glossed over by a sympathetic media and because, by comparison to Bush and McCain, he is the second coming of Cicero. In many respects, McCain is (or was) the right package in the wrong wrapper; whereas Obama might be the wrong package in the right wrapper.
When evaluated against Michael's triumvirate of essential presidential characteristics: communication, leadership, and receptivity to new/different ideas, Obama, in my estimation, fails miserably in two of the three. He may very well turn out to be terrific, but to-date, we can only go by his record. It is undeniable that his years in state and federal government are remarkably devoid of any major accomplishments or even strong, memorable, passionate stands. In fact, his 129 "Present" votes while in the Illinois State Senate, many on highly charged/important issues, place his leadership and political courage in serious question. At a minimum, it certainly doesn't reconcile with this statement from his campaign announcement speech: "What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."
One could also argue that he is as much of an ideologue as Bush, albeit in a much softer and smoother package. He is a world-class listener, but I've yet to see him demonstrate a willingness to meaningfully adjust his positions based on contrary opinions. So far, he is merely adroit at giving the impression of openness without actually being open.
When/if Obama becomes President, let's hope that he couples his strong communication skills with a sincere effort to craft bipartisian solutions. Let's also hope that he develops a greater appreciation for the importance of personal responsibility and the need to control the size of our federal bureaucracy. The world's problems are too numerous and significant to solve without cooperation from all sides.
Communication - Listening and Responding
I was absolutely stunned by Obama's comment that "we need to spread the wealth" in such a casual reference at the debate. I could not believe that McCain did not drop the "Joe the Plummer" diatribe, stand up and say "THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US!" Explain to the public that you who are hard working "must pay your fair share" according to Obama. Point and explain the socialism path that is being discussed. Yes, really use the "S" word. Point to the economies of France, Germany, Scandinavia,... How are jobs working out in those socialized governments? 2 to 3 times the level of unemployment than us and over 30% of the workforce working for the government.
We Americans are a fair minded bunch. We give more to charities per person than any other country in the world. We work harder than most people in the world. Our country is the bastion of opportunity, just ask Skarkosy. Yet we need to "spread the wealth"? I always believed you work for your wealth in this country and contributed to the areas that you supported. Now, we're expected to let the government do that for us? Why?
This leads to the question that McCain needed to ask to Obama - Where does the wealth need to be spread and, as a Senator, why weren't you working to do those things?
With all of our education, Americans continue to be self-centered when it comes to worldly politics, and the results of socialism in many countries. Any one that travels the world knows that socialism is a scam. Go to London. Did you know that you will not find a dentist in the national health care system within 20 miles of London? Did you know that most professionals in the UK have "private" health insurance because they cannot get sufficient care in the socialized public program? Did you know that it would take you 8-10 months to schedule a knee operation in Canada? Did you actually see what double digit unemployment in Germany actually looks like?
In one day, you can see and feel the stress it is putting on the people in these countries. There are immigration issues not publicly being discussed that make ours look trivial. THe socialized governments are attracting people with free programs and no jobs. It is easy to see the divisions growing deeper between people in these countries. Socialism is not bringing people together, it is actually driving them apart. My observation is this is going to lead to issues in some of these countries that will make our 1960's look like a walk in the park.
My point is simply this - we do not need to "change" or try the socialistic route to find the result. It is all around us. It has failed just like the "workers paradise" has failed. We just need to educate our fellow citizens with a messenger who can communicate.
JTS
Reply to this