Thoughts about The Presidency

Americans typically refer to the POTUS as the leader of the Free World. This is a “title” that some Non-Americans really take issue with for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it implies that their own countries are secondary “citzens of the world.”

I’d like to try and get beyond the titles and the packaging. One of the qualities that you really want in a president or any leader for that matter is excellent communication skills. You’d like to have a great orator who can inspire you and make you feel like you are a part of a community. And not just any community, but something great, something special.

But the ability to communicate is not enough by itself. Ideally you’d like to have it stand alongside great thoughts and vision, as well as the ability to translate ideas into action. So it would be something like:

Ideas, Communicate, Action (translation of ideas into action)

I don’t have time to make this a long post, so I am going to try and cut to the heart of the matter.

The Presidency is not a one person job. It is too large, too complex and too involved for any one person, regardless of their skills and ability.

So what you really need to be concerned with are the people that surround the president. Who are they, what skills do they have and are they a benefit or a hinderance to the president’s ability to lead the country.

I have said many times that I am not a fan of Bush, but I am tired of listening to people gripe about his speech. I don’t care if he garbles his words. I don’t care if it is too colloquial. All I care about is what he is really saying. Does he speak about policy issues and his vision of the future, and if so, what is going to happen and where are we going.

Substance, not packaging is important.

(Visited 30 times, 1 visits today)

Comments

  1. Sadly, substance over style died during the televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. It’s been mainly about “image” ever since (though, noted manglers of the English Language – George W. Bush and Jean Chretien, were both elected leaders of their respective nations in spite of the trend towards Polished, TV friendly leaders).

    True Quote from Chretien: When asked about what would constitute proof of WMD’s in Iraq, Chretien answered “A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It’s a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven.”

  2. Anonymous says:

    With bush you know what you gonna get: more of the same deceit. More lives butchered for megalomanic intent. More twisting the truth. More hidden plans. More abuse of federal authority to suit personal agenda’s. And more disrespect for human lives wasted for oilfield domination.

    Listen to donnie rumsfeld, understand his logic how iraq will be a partial democracy in a world where nothing is perfect. Will this man be in the package next time around? The world will certainly be a safer place if he is. Espescially the land of the brave, the free the blah blah blah.

    Ever since bush took the white house hostage i seriously rethought all things i deemed certain. If there is ‘partial’ democracy there must also be partial pregnancy, partial AIDS-infection and even partial death. Everything is partial from now on.

    I’m afraid, though, that bush and his henchmen are only ‘partially’ sane.

    Zeruel

Speak Your Mind

*

  
Please enter an e-mail address

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.