March 1, 2016 at 8:50 pm #47645
In another thread several people bemoaned the antics for the leading GOP contenders. So I’m asking. What leadership qualities are you looking for?
In my opinion there has been very little leadership or maturity in either party. Here are some of the things that I am looking for:
2. Ability to work across the aisle
3. Faithfulness to our military and veterans
4. Strength in dealing with other countries – both allies and enemies
5. A strict interpretation of the Constitution
6. True Godliness and Spirituality
7. A vision for the countries futureMarch 2, 2016 at 12:41 am #47650
That’s a good list except I’d change #6 to having a solid moral and ethical base. I interpret True Godliness and Spirituality as code for being a fundamentalist Christian, and too many of them put their interpretation of the bible ahead of the Constitution.March 2, 2016 at 1:05 am #47653
You can cross #2 off the list for me. I have no desire to placate the otherside.March 2, 2016 at 2:09 am #47654
Personally, I’m comfortable with the list as is, given that it’s a desired qualities list, not a required qualifications list. I seriously doubt that so-called fundamentalist Christians would claim a Seventh Day Adventist as one of their own, yet at least in public Ben Carson certainly seems to fit #6 nicely. Ironically, Mike Huckabee and the fundamentalist Christian bloc soundly rejected Mitt Romney because he didn’t fit their club label, and probably kept him from being elected in place of Barack Obama. Even more ironically, his religion appears to have been the reason more than any other criteria they used to keep him out of office. I’m not willing to roll over and “give” fundamentalist Christians exclusive rights to “Godliness and Spirituality,” and I also claim that as my own personal standard, even if I don’t always measure up. Yet the fundamentalist Christians would deny me any place among them as well. Could I vote for a practicing Jewish, Catholic, or Native American candidate, for example? No question, as long as the other six criteria in the list were also met and they didn’t emblazon their religion on their foreheads. (And by the way – don’t for a moment assume I was implying Romney met #6 in the list. I significantly question whether he did. He most certainly was not my candidate in the primary.)
Clearly a “solid moral and ethical base” seems essential, and though outward claims and appearances can be deceiving, a person that truly meets #6 can be assumed to meet the moral and ethical qualities.
As for working across the aisle, that doesn’t have to mean compromising fundamental principles or ethics. I always found it interesting how Ron Paul worked very well with Dennis Kucinich, despite diametrically opposed views on many fundamental issues. Both had significant respect for each other as human beings, and acted accordingly. Where they could agree (which they did on at least a few significant issues such as the Patriot Act), party labels were simply not a factor in their cooperation. I want someone in Washington who’s willing to look past party labels, and seek out those people willing and capable of doing the same. Where NO common ground is sought, enemies are created. And where enemies are created, destruction ensues.March 2, 2016 at 2:23 am #47656
#6 I have issue with as well . If he were too pious and into his faith ………….and that is the key word , FAITH , we believe a religion because of generally two reasons . None can prove it .
#1 . We were raised in it , and dont question that , but rather just continue it on .
#2 . It fits with our concept of what is ‘ correct ‘ , so we believe it because we choose to .
I would worry about a person that is too deeply into one , to be able to fully respect , and defend the rights of those that are not of his faith . Thus number 6 is automatically in personal conflict with number 5 .March 2, 2016 at 2:34 am #47657
74, on #2, any President that can’t compromise will have a failed presidency. Nobody gets 100% of what they want. Effective leaders know how to negotiate. Reagan did it very well with Tip O’Neil.March 2, 2016 at 2:56 am #47659
Effective leaders know how to negotiate. Reagan did it very well with Tip O’Neil.
Excellent example. I was editing my previous post while the above was posted, and cited Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich as yet another example. That was certainly an odd pairing on the surface, and too many people were unable to see what those two were attempting to accomplish in single areas, totally separate from their fundamental differences in others. Paul and Kucinich were able to respect another human being and find common ground on which to combine their efforts for the good of the nation.
Thus number 6 is automatically in personal conflict with number 5 .
No, adherence to #6 is not mutually exclusive with adherence to #5. It’s just a rare person that can adhere to both. The more narrow minded a person is who qualifies under #6, the less likely s/he is to be able to qualify under #5 as well (they will conveniently ignore the 1st Amendment on all four fundamentals).March 2, 2016 at 3:59 am #47662
The problem with your example is the Democrats reneged on their promises, Reagan didn’t get what he wanted. Negotiations only work when there is good faith and you actually gain something. The art of the deal where everyone leaves the table happy is a nice concept in business. In politics maybe not so much. So which freedom are you willing to trade away for something else? I’d rather have gridlock for eternity instead of letting them make new laws.March 2, 2016 at 2:47 pm #47667
74: You have crystalized the problem. We have so few real leaders that no one trusts each other. When Reagan and Tip O’Neil cut deals they both knew they could trust the other guy. Would you want to put your faith in Obama or Mitch McConnell keeping their word?
This takes us to the next phase. If no real leader steps forward, are we doomed to become Europe? Where after every election all the splinter parties negotiate to build a majority coalition to rule until the next election.March 4, 2016 at 1:55 am #47686
“The state — or, to make matters more concrete, the government — consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting ‘A’ to satisfy ‘B’. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods.” — H. L. Mencken
While that remains as true as it was in Mencken’s day, insofar as getting elected is concerned, virtually all candidates nowadays, come to us already pre-sold to some large interest group, or another. Most of the hopefuls of the two dominant parties, at least by the time they get around to seeking national-level office, are already sold to the cause of Globalism (monolithic planetary control) as opposed to serving the interests of their nation’s citizens, first and foremost, and in opposition, if necessary, to the interest of other nations, or of those who would enslave all nations.
I am trying to discern which of the candidates, if any at all, (1) actually intends, to “preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and (2) actually has the guts, and the smarts, to give it a chance of succeeding.
So far, my eyeballs and earbones are just getting sore.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.