This post is in response to a conversation on FB I recently had with a former student. I made the statement that Bush was a better leader than Obama, and she challenged me to support that assertion with evidence. I want to start with the bigger picture of leadership; and we'll see if I get to the issue eventually. . .
Let me begin by listing the names of people who I think are great leaders: Jesus the Christ, Lord Baden Powell, Helaman, Trina Packard (a former boss of mine), Bronco Mendenhall, Kristian Watford (fellow missionary in Chile), George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Glenn Beck, Thomas S. Monson.
Though I can probably think of more, I will stop there. My next logical step is to justify why I think each on that list is a leader. This is an indirect way of defining leadership (from my perspective, of course). Now, each person has a long list of great qualities (and some may have many character flaws, too), but I will focus on qualities that caused me to think of them as a leader.
Jesus - His life, example, and teachings inspire me to be a better person;
Lord Baden Powell - He trained boys and men to be better people, he led men in successful campaigns on the battlefield, and his life inspires me;
Helaman - He rallied men to a righteous cause, inspired them, and led them in battle against superior numbers without losing a single soldier;
Trina Packard - She was tough on me and inspired me to perform my job duties at a higher level.
Bronco Mendenhall - He trains boys to become leaders, he admits his mistakes, he puts his trust in others and lets them succeed or fail, and he lives with integrity in that he does not compromise his principles;
Kristian Watford - I spent a couple of hours with him knocking doors in Chile. His example of love for others, and singleness of heart toward a righteous purpose inspires me to this day;
George Washington - Unwavering bravery and refusal to compromise his principles. He inspired men to fight for a cause against all odds. He refused a Kingdom because he valued freedom;
Abraham Lincoln - He worked hard. He made difficult decisions in the face of opposition;
Ronald Reagan - "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - and he said this after all his friends repeatedly told him not to. He treated his political enemies with kindness.
Glenn Beck - He inspires me to study more, and to work on becoming a better individual and raising a good family;
Thomas S. Monson - He exemplifies service to his fellow man, and he inspires me to serve others.
That exercise surprised me. I was anticipating that my definition of leadership would include something like: "a person that has improved something with measurable results". It is clear that I define leader as somebody who inspires me to live according to my beliefs, or to be a better person.
So, where do I go from here? Based upon that definition, how do I judge Obama and Bush on their leadership, or compare the two? To be honest, I have not felt inspired by either of them. I cannot deny that Obama has inspired a lot of people. But I honestly do not know that he has inspired them to be better people. Only those who have felt inspired by him can answer that one (any takers?). To like someone is not to be inspired by them. I like Brian Regan, Harold Finch and John Reese (both fictional), and Tyler Haws--but they do not inspire me to be a better person.
Therefore, I conclude that (according to my definition of leadership) neither Obama, nor Bush (nor any current politician) is a good leader. Sadly, I am not sure we look for good leaders in politicians. When I go to the polls, I am not thinking This guy inspires me to be a better person, but rather I agree with this guy's policies more than the other guy's. Could it be that no leaders are running for office? I don't know.
I am fully aware that my judgements above hinge upon my definition of leadership. Others might define leadership differently and come to a different conclusion. Furthermore, others may embrace my definition, but feel personally inspired by some current politicians; and they would also reach a different conclusion. If so, I would love a response. Now, an entirely different post can be written about Obama, Bush, and others being a "good president" (as opposed to "good leader"); and my definition for good president would come from my interpretation of the Constitution. I may or may not write that post some day. We'll see!
Public note to my former student: After typing this I realized that maybe I dodged the issue. I didn't do exhaustive research to delineate points for or against Obama and Bush. I didn't mention even one of their decisions, statements, or actions (not even an umbrella incident!). After defining leadership and coming to the conclusion that I didn't consider either to be a leader, I simply didn't want to spend the time to hack apart their presidencies for the purpose of arguing leadership qualities. It would be as though I decided to compare Eminem and Little Wayne to judge who has more musical talent. Wait, musical talent? Silly me! Now, would I like to hack apart the presidencies of Obama and Bush to say what I do (or don't) like about each of them. Maybe. That's how I originally began the post in my mind, but it seemed petty and fruitless. So I started with my definition of leadership based upon my personal experience and went from there. . .
I like your notion that good leaders inspire. I also agree that good leaders love. My experience has shown me that good leaders are first and foremost, great listeners. People in leadership position who refuse to hear those around them, are dictators, not leaders.
ReplyDeletei agree that a truly great leader inspires his or her people. and i agree that based solely on this definition, neither bush nor obama (nor any current american politician, for that matter) is a great leader. in fact, that is kind of what i was trying to point out with the whole umbrella debacle: there is no noticeable difference between the two. and honestly, i think that's just modern, big-league politics. by the time a politician has a serious bid for the presidency, he's had to make so many moral compromises and so many pandering changes-of-mind to gain the support of his constituents that any idealistic intentions or personal agendas he may have once had are blurred with the demands and agendas of his backers. everything he says and does in the public eye is disingenuous to a certain extent, because everything from his attire, to his words, to his positions on political matters is carefully crafted and controlled to win elections and public support. left or right, all presidents have one essential thing in common: they are all politicians. and sadly politics is a numbers game. a politician's primary concern is numbers, not rights or even what is right.
ReplyDeletewith that said, i have to admit i don't entirely agree with your definition of leadership. or, rather, i don't agree that a great leader is defined purely by his ability to inspire. to me, the element of inspiration and the element of action are inextricable. i mean, both adolf hitler and osama bin laden are great leaders by your definition: both have inspired, and continue to inspire, millions of people to be their version of a "better person." both have inspired their followers to not only "live according to their beliefs," but to kill and die by them, as well.
i would therefore assert that a great leader is not one who inspires you to follow him. a great leader is one who inspires you to follow him in something right, to something good. something better. a great leader is not a great leader if he's leading you down the wrong path or off a cliff. the direction matters--as much, if not more, than the man leading the way.
but we all have radically different ideas about which direction we should be going in. and, of course, everyone believes that they are the ones in the right. and that's why, no matter how rational or intelligent the evidence presented and analyzed may be, the right and the left (or you and I) will never agree on who or what is better. in general, a step forward for the liberal agenda is seen as a step backward for the conservative agenda, and vice versa. so arguing effectiveness, even with rational evidence, is fruitless; no leader can be seen as effective if only half the people following him like where he's going. how can two sides ever come to one understanding of a leader, or of the future, when they have two drastically and fundamentally different visions of what that future should look like? how can we logically argue about the most effective leader or route to a place when no one can agree on where we are now or where we want to be?
Maura, thanks for taking the time to comment (twice). I value your opinion and I enjoy this conversation.
ReplyDeleteYou've laid out the major obstacle in politics today: how to have constructive dialogue with the purpose of improving the nation when both sides (all sides--there are more than two) have different ideas as to what is right.
You are correct in that the inspiration must be toward righteousness, or goodness. I thought I mentioned that in my post. Well, actually, I thought that my readers would generally agree that my (my own, Aaron's) desire to be a better person would be synonymous with your "something right".
So, where do we start in our dialogue? I think a natural place to begin is the Constitution, assuming that we both agree that this is the law of the land. Perhaps we can establish some foundation upon which we both agree, and slowly build from there. It may be a fun and enriching exercise. Maybe I can start a series of blog posts for the purpose of establishing our common ground and discovering differences, one paragraph (or sentence) of the Constitution at a time. Stay tuned! I think it will take us a long time just to get through the preamble. So many big ideas in that opening paragraph alone.
Take care.
:0)
sorry, of course there are many sides; i was just using liberal/conservative as a framework. i wasn't sure how to articulate exactly what i meant without simplifying the example.
ReplyDeletei'm not sure it's safe to assume that your "something right" would be synonymous with mine, or that mine would match the next person's, and so on and so forth. i mean, of course, in general i think we all want to improve ourselves--be kinder, be more patient, that sort of thing. but we all live very different lives. we all believe in very different things. for instance, the followers of osama bin laden who believe 9/11 was an act of righteousness certainly have a different take on righteousness than i think you or i do. these may be a dramatic examples, but what i'm saying is that we all have a different idea of what it means to be a good, or to live in a good, righteous manner. and i think those different ideas tend to play a role in the disparity between the parties and in the legislation they push, particularly with civil rights concerns like marriage equality, abortion rights, and so on.
i agree that the constitution is the law of the land. and i am intrigued by your idea of going through in more detail and finding some mutual ground on which we can eventually measure the government's effectiveness. however, i feel obliged to mention that the constitution has been and may again be amended. it is not, nor has it ever been, a perfect document. we are a very different country now than we were when it was first put into place, and it can and should change to reflect the times and the people. so as we go through, i may not agree that what is is what should be, but i think that's part of the experiment and it could be fun! i look forward to reading your blog and exploring it further.
wishing you and your family the best in the meantime!