The Failure of Leadership

Bush likes to call himself "the decider" and to deride the polls, saying "I don't pay much attention to them."

He fancies himself a "leader" elected to make the "hard decisions." Except we're structured in such a way that the President is more, and less, than a "leader." He (or, hopefully someday, SHE) is elected to be the point person for what America and Americans need to prosper. He is not elected to follow his own agenda, or the agenda of his advisors and/or strategists. He is the first-among-equals, not a tyrant, dictator, or king. He is not the "decider" but a facilitator, a single face that represents American ideals to the rest of the world.

On and after 9/11, Americans demanded justice for the attacks. The President acted, sending troops into Afghanistan allegedly looking for Osama Bin Laden and intending to take down the Taliban, which had helped train the terrorists. Few objected to this, though it's interesting that the Taliban had, mere months before, been given billions of dollars in an aid package to help with the Drug War.

But, regardless of the promises made to the American people, Osama Bin Laden wasn't all that important to George W. Bush or his advisors. At this point, the military could've maintained its hold on Afghanistan and insisted on the help of allies in the region to track down Bin Laden. Instead, for some inexplicable reason, Bush decided to turn our attentions to Iraq, suggesting that this tiny, more or less impoverished Middle Eastern nation was somehow a legitimate threat to the United States.

This was a unilateral decision, not only on the part of the U.S. vs. the United Nations, but as a so-called "leader" allegedly representing the American people. This had nothing to do with the interests of Americans, and nothing to do with the mandate given to go after Bin Laden. This was done as a part of the strategy of advisors and consultants in terms of increasing American power in the region, as well as enriching the coffers of certain corporate allies. The decision was ultimately very destructive to America, since it alienated allies, robbed the treasury, and trapped the military in a dangerous, two-front war very far from home.

We do not need a leader so much as we need a point person. Someone who understands that he (or she) was elected to enforce the will of the people, and to look to the long-term interests of the people. Not just certain supporters, but ALL the people. Bush made it clear he was a Republican President, and thus cut out nearly all input from anyone espousing a different point of view. He was going to continue the war, continue to wire-tap Americans, and the new congress could either get on board, or stay the hell out of the way. He had no time for anything that didn't conform to his agenda.

When he suggests that he doesn't pay attention to the polls, what he's really saying is that he has no intention of obeying the will of the American people. He's "the decider."

There is a vast difference between the expectations of leadership in a representational republic and a strongman state. Bush fancies himself a strongman, disregarding any input or feedback that doesn't fit his particular agenda, but this doesn't make him a "leader." At least not with respect to what the founders intended upon creating the United States.

But we see it not only reflected in Bush's "leadership," but also the "leadership" of portions of our own party, those who choose to align themselves with the corporate donors and business leaders rather than with the people.

The people are aware of the fact that those who fancy themselves "leaders" rather than representatives of the people are, in fact, not their allies. This is where the common perception that "they're all the same" comes from. Because those who think themselves as leaders rather than servants of the people are, at their core, not really that different from one another. They may have slightly different agendas, but, in the end, it is not the agenda of what's best for Americans and America.

We need more than leadership. We need engagement. People dedicated to doing what's right, what needs to be done, and more interested in what benefits America and Americans of all colors, creeds, and orientation than what benefits Fat Cat fund-raisers, corporate donors, and religious fanatics.

:applause:

:kick: