Opinion/Editorial
CHOOSING A WISE LEADER
How does a huge ship navigate rough waters? It does not do so by cutting power, turning the ship’s fantail, and then riding the storm out. To succeed and survive that ship must face into the wind and directly into oncoming waves, no matter how large and powerful. That ship must put on power to both propellers and thrust forward to take on potentially lethal powers of nature. Why would a country choose any other choice when faced with the broken, risky, troubled, and violent forces of hugely competitive and terminally threatening countries around them?
The captain at the bridge of the metaphorical ship described above does not stand before the armored windows looking over the bow with a smile on his or her face. No, there’s a serious expression on that captain’s face and a serious mission carried on that captain’s shoulders. The role of leader in such situations is one of such seriousness that most humans are not capable of performing the necessary leadership tasks in an optimal way for every long, if at all. America stands at an interesting, if not life threatening, crossroads. Does it select, as it’s captain, a person who is well capable of standing on that described bridge but woefully inexperienced as a seaman and possessed of a cowardly presentation and background? Or does it select a person who’s led smaller ships through countless storms and when that captain does speak always does so with intellectual expression founded upon experience gained fighting through countless other storms?
A bellicose cowardly potential leader applies for the leadership role by recommending a series of outrageous and ridiculous solutions to mostly made-up problems supposed to face his described vessel. The other potential leader advises against changing course radically and instead facing into the storm that isn’t really a storm at all, but merely some storm-tossed white water and blowing spindrift. Why is the decision citizens, passengers, veterans, blacks, whites, browns, and gays must make come November such a seemingly complex one? Because facts are not what social orders are founded upon when it comes to making definitive leadership decisions. Emotion rules most decisions in and around any tribal social order, and since emotions are so flagrantly used, they are also most flagrantly manipulated.
How is it possible for the results of past experience to benefit mankind and allow for a more comforting, livable, longer, and more intelligent future? Understanding is the mental tool that effectively works to control, direct and moderate emotion. Understanding of what, however? Unless there is the opportunity, whether accidentally, incidentally, or deliberately created to bring scientific fact (that just means checkable and verifiable) to the table for real consideration there is not much hope of any decisions being made that are not coming totally from the human emotional center. Following ‘gut’ instincts is following emotional response and, as so many humans have discovered, usually leads to an unproductive and often times disastrous conclusion.
Metaphorically, the future is often categorized as the road or path ahead. What’s down the road? What is the best path to follow? Given that the role of selecting human leadership is such a diffusely and heavily braided one (many people deciding on the same thing together) what kind of decision might be best to consider for the individual person reviewing limited choices?
History is replete with stories leadership selections made out of responding to the emotions of fear, vengeance, or avarice and, although mankind has suffered tremendous losses in making decisions on the basis of such decisions, there is no question that over the long haul of time civilization has continued to grow and develop to an ever more qualitative and quantitative state.
Is it not time to consider facts, such as America’s preeminence over all other parts of the planet; geographic, military, economic and philosophic, that a current selection of “steady as she goes, all ahead together” might serve more as a decision to proceed with the selection of a leader than simply as a captain’s command to an engineer operating the engines aboard a large ship?
What is described as being so wrong with all societies on earth today (lack of food, clean water, health treatments, jobs, etc.), is the same litany of afflictions suffered by humanity since the dawn of the rise of social order. Prior to the impact of such small numbers of humans controlling the message furnished by mass media (there are only seven media corporations), the negative impact of humanity’s long-suffering afflictions could not be so easily ascribed to being the fault of any particular person or group. Today’s media message is almost all bad news and that bad news, even though it is well couched and polished as being the fault of weak cowardly leaders, is in many ways, facts being analyzed and accepted, the fault of man’s lack of continued development socially and technologically. Neither current candidate for presidential office today is going to make a significant dent in fixing humankind’s problems as they make themselves evident on every portion of every continent on earth. There is, however, the very real possibility (given that the one thing a president of the United States is entrusted with is the ability to launch nuclear weapons near instantly at anyone or place) that man can now, indeed, bomb themselves back into the stone age, or worse.
Sometimes, when things don’t seem to be going in the best direction, it is wisest to continue down the path of least risk. Avoiding a low and constant crashing sound in the distance, while traveling across the turbulent and moving waters of life, might be more prudent than proceeding out into deeper more stormy waters. To accomplish that requires effective experienced leadership. Choose those leaders as wisely as possible. Steady as she goes, all ahead together.
