Saturday, November 18, 2006

Leadership is a Quality

After the recent elections, the Republicans have asked themselves why it is that their numbers have dwindled, and what it takes to recapture the leadership they thought the country wanted.

If numbers were all there was to it, then this week's showing of strength wouldn't have been so embarrassed at City Hall, with the voicing of opposition to the rail development hoping to be squelched once and for all. Instead, the few voices of opposition spoke the best -- and carried that moment.

True leadership has always been of the few -- and not just might making right, the tyranny of the many over the few. The few have always known that oppression of the mob, the conformist mind -- that now passes for the "educated" mind, when it is merely the "indoctrinated" mind that serves the status quo. That's what today's intellectuals have to recognize and understand -- how they have been co-opted to serve the oppressors.

That's what happened to the liberalism (idealism) of the '60s -- they sold out at the first chance they had -- to obtain lifetime security, just like the generation before them they accused of being too occupied with these things. So all they talk about now is whether they've secured their own ticket to a comfortable retirement -- which now is a fantasy of having second homes all around the world, and being able to travel to them, every year.

But they are still the "poor in spirit" as they argue for higher wages at Walmart -- not seeming to realize that low, everyday prices is the best chance the poor have of being viable in today's status conscious consumption. That is the problem causing all the others. While some have no home, others have two or ten, doesn't seem to register any connection. People driving gas-guzzling vehicles, demand that the government guarantee their right for unlimited supplies with no profit to suppliers.

In that kind of an environment, the lone voice in the wilderness of confusion, distortion and manipulation, is the only leader. So how many does it take? Just one -- the best one. That's always been what true leadership has been.

Obviously, when everybody is a "leader," or calls themselves such, without necessitating this actual demonstration of any of these qualities of distinguishing themselves from the crowd, such numbers are meaningless. That's also what genius is: a million mediocre talents cannot equal the one of genius -- no matter how much they try, no matter how long they try.

The task of any society is to choose their single best leader -- and not just simply call everybody "leaders," thinking that is enough to make them so.


At November 20, 2006 11:47 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

I was ambivalent about running for elective office -- because I know that I’m the best at speaking as a private individual NOT representing anybody else but a new point of view. If I don’t do that, it won’t get done because people say what has only been said before -- and in the case of most “public” forums these days, what they were instructed and told to say. It’s become a joke.

but one has to hear something unique and original before one can easily recognize the bogus and contrived. One doesn’t have to convince anybody of that. They simply recognize the authentic or they don’t.

I don’t think one can persuade another of anything they are not (self-)prepared to hear. Even Jesus could not convince those not disposed to hearing his message. Rather than browbeating them with the graphic consequences of not following his advice, they were merely not saved -- by themselves.

My interpretation of low voter participation is that the population has moved on -- just as the old indices of many older forms of participation do not portend the decline of civilization but just that form of it, that evolves into something better. it invariably evolves into something better -- even while the old status quo is warning direly that there can be no better than what they are the exclusive administrators and gatekeepers of.

That usually is government, which in many countries, still controls much of everyday life -- in every aspect of their “choices.” The lessened preoccupation and intrusion into most affairs and discussions are actually a barometer of a healthy society emerging.

It’s been thought by every social philosophy, that the best government is that which governs least. Good people do not simply demand good government -- but less involvement in it. People are more civilized and have to make better choices because there are more choices -- and of course, a few become very skilled at making choices and finding out about the alternatives, beyond what is commonly known.

That’s where all the institutions of knowledge fail -- because they are institutions that can never be as quick to respond as individuals can. It may be that the age of institutions is over -- and all the other forces have an equal chance of influence. Is elected office the only way to power and influence or is that now the least effective avenue of evolution and progress?

That was uppermost in my mind as I listened to the occasional person who demanded I listen to them and say for them what I didn’t want to say, didn’t even want to entertain. Some people can do it, and some can’t. Like in every field of activity, I think politics become an activity people enjoy -- or don’t, rather than that everybody should have the same level of interest and involvement -- because there is so many other things to be involved with.

Rather than everybody needing to do anything, what’s needed is for the best to be doing it -- and the critical task of society, is identifying those few.

At November 21, 2006 2:24 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't vote or be involved in community affairs; in fact, I'm saying if they were really involved, voting wouldn't be their only involvement but would be their least thing -- and therefore, not the extraordinary effort it seems to require now.

So I think one has to be informed and the rest takes care of itself -- but to promote voting alone as the sole measure of community(political) participation, is to make it meaningless and a sham.

A lot of campaigning is this show only -- rather than real leadership without the approval and approbation. There's a whole generation who have never done anything but what they put on their resume.


Post a Comment

<< Home