September 30, 2004
-
An Impossible Job: Meandering Thoughts
I didn’t want to watch the debate, but a colleague bullied me into it. So I dragged myself out of bed (yes, yes
- These guys were both really nervous
- Both of these guys took their turn to look awkward
- Both of these guys took their turn to make good points
- Neither of these guys are superhuman; rather, they’re mistake-making humans
- Both these guys really, really, really want this job
- This is an impossible job for a mere nervous, awkward, mistake-making human being.
I find myself (completely ludicrously on one level), comparing this President, and his Challenger, and the job they both seek, with my boss, the CEO of a small high-tech R&D firm. The more secure my boss becomes in his role as leader of our company, the less connected he is to the employees and the more focused on outward and forward-looking strategic and visionary leadership. This is entirely appropriate, but it requires significant assistance from the management team to uphold the institution while also moving forward into his vision for it.
No leader of any institution, let alone the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, can possibly perform their job in isolation. Any leader depends upon a large network of advisors and experts to inform and support his actions.
One of the key elements raised by this debate on foreign affairs in the midst of a nation at war is: How do you change leadership in a time of crisis? One of President Bush’s oft-repeated points was that he has been firm and consistent, and that changing the firm and consistent approach is a danger to the country. One of Senator Kerry’s oft-repeated points was that the President’s policies have consistently led us in the wrong direction.
In order to reach the peaceful world order that both men claim to desire, neither man can stand alone in a spotlight and perform to spec. For me, as much as these fallible humans at the podium I am interested in the shadowy cohorts behind them. I wish that I could walk into the offices of the vast array of supporting staff, like I walk into the offices of my colleagues at work, and learn more about how each team plans to put their leader’s vision into practice. I wish, thinking about this debate, that the connection between a citizen and her leader were not so tenuous a thing as the modern world makes it.
In any event, I’m glad my colleague bullied me into watching. In this disconnected world, it was a far more substantive experience than I had expected.
- These guys were both really nervous
Comments (13)
Good points! I especially liked your comments regarding the supporting staff.
I'm glad my morning's schedule allowed me to watch it, as well...and I have the same questions in mind about the shadowy supporting actors behind these fumbling, sometimes bumbling, spotlight seekers.
It didn't change my impressions of these men, nor did it make me question which of the two is more conscious of the interdependence of their country on the world community.
I envy neither of them.
I enjoy reading your post because you tackle the hard issues and give it your definitive perspective, from the Beslan tragedy, the rains that downpoured in your area as a result of the caribbean hurricanes, and now, the first of the presidential debates.
The neocons who form the Dubya's cabinet scare me, with their preemptive strikes. Focusing on the administrative back-up he has, I'm not sure he's got the best.
As for myself, I lay in semi-sleep watching Groundhog Day and tuned in to the Debate after the commentators started dissecting the Pres and the contender's performances. This may be trite but I thought Kerry's orange look of two days ago had weathered into nice tan tonight. He was looking spiffier than I'd ever seen him before. There was much talk about George not being conscious of the camera as he grimaced during the debate.
Just for the record: I didn't watch the debate to help me decide -- although watching definitely solidified my decision, which I suppose is what us hard-core already-decided's are all about, eh?
And ditto, ditto on DiDi: I don't envy either of them either, and I wonder, yes indeed I wonder, what it IS that makes someone want this impossible job so much??
Your discussion of the role of the support staff in the leader's ability to perform his job is very well stated. One of my concerns with Bush is that he is more of a front man and the behind-the-scenes-appointed-not-elected support council are really developing and implementing the plans. Most of the lead characters on his staff are people whom I think are too focused on bolstering the condition of the rich and influential. On the other hand, we have no idea who Kerry will choose to fill these positions. However, I would expect Kerry to be more of a shepard than the sheep.
Excellent observations. But when you use lanuage like "outward and forward-looking strategic and visionary leadership," I worry about you too. Are you being brainwashed at work?
yes, YES!
EVERY President is surrounded with people who cannot or will not tell the Emperor that he has no clothes... and in this Age of Mediocrity, that is dangerous indeed.
I didn't watch more than about 60 seconds of the debate, because in all honesty, I cannot stand listening to Bush. I'd rather read transcripts than have to listen to the President come over all folksy. The thing that disappoints me most about last night's event is that it was structured so that the two men didn't really interact with one another, judging from the bit of video I've seen and all the reading I've done. I wish they'd really had to engage with one another, you know?
I want to know why no one else bothers to question why we only have 2 choices (and 2 candidates debating) for the most powerful office in the free world.
A fair number of people are screaming for change; yet when offered no true choice, except for the status quo (read Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dummer of the Republicratic parties), people don't still seek a third or even fourth choice.
Neither of the two existing candidates are going to change the way our government works currently; it's too big & powerful & muddled in muck for its own good. Not to mention the fact that both of the largest political parties stand to win by maintaining the status quo.
Of course, the ones whining about change are probably also the ones who don' t bother to take the responsibility to vote.
I'll be needing a hammer to disengage that soap box now.
I've come to the conclusion that I was watching the debate as I would a competition, waiting for points to be scored and tallied. It was a disappointment in that regard. It was, however, informative to watch this with my dh (of a very different political persuasion) and 11 yo son. We all spoke about the questions we had that were left unanswered, from the practical to the philisophical.
We'll be watching the rest of them and hoping for more substance.
I whole-heartedly agree. :sigh:
Have a great week!
Deb
Neither will achieve peace... for when one party wants peace and the other wants to bring harm and hate, anger and annihilation, there can never be peace.
perhaps, sadly, peace is a impossible fantasy, abnormal for humankind.
Comments are closed.