GameBanshee Forums

Okay folks, I know I’m not Mr. Politics, but here it goes. I interested on how you all see the differentiating styles of leadership between governments. Comparing for example the late Queen Mother and the way she traveled the streets of London while the Blitz was going on, to Bush’s reaction to the events of 9/11. What do you feel he should have done differently (if anything). Of course, this isn't just about Bush. Feel free to bring up any governmental leadership issues you have.

well, the thing is, neither the queen mother, or even bush for that matter actually control(ed) their countries. I mean, the queen mother was only a figurehead, and bush, well, he has absolutely no idea what he is doing, he just people have him right stuff that he reads, and his advisors tell him what to veto and what to sign, i'm sure some people disagree, this is just my opinion.

Originally posted by Aragorn Returns
well, the thing is, neither the queen mother, or even bush for that matter actually control(ed) their countries. I mean, the queen mother was only a figurehead, and bush, well, he has absolutely no idea what he is doing, he just people have him right stuff that he reads, and his advisors tell him what to veto and what to sign, i'm sure some people disagree, this is just my opinion.

I will agree to all but the " he has absolutely no idea what he is doing". Now if it had been Dan Q..I would agree 100%.

i agree with you kayless, all i'm saying is that it's a different kind of leadership, i mean, she wasn't the one out there signing signing the treaties and everything, she was a moral leader, not a task leader.

@weasel, ok, how bout this, bush knows considerably less than he should on most political matters.

Originally posted by Aragorn Returns

@weasel, ok, how bout this, bush knows considerably less than he should on most political matters.

add "to be a president" to the end and I agree 100%.

i believe that a president should know more about political matters than bush does

is that one okay?

Originally posted by Aragorn Returns
i agree with you kayless, all i'm saying is that it's a different kind of leadership, i mean, she wasn't the one out there signing signing the treaties and everything, she was a moral leader, not a task leader.

I agree that a figurehead who serves as a "moral leader" (with no real authority but who can serve to rally the people) is more inspiring then a "task leader". The corrupting influence of power isn't as pronounced with a figurehead (in theory anyway). Of course this relates to another thread, where it was debated whether or not one actually wants a moral or immoral person leading them. Many of history's most effective leaders were not saints. Morality and power are often antithetical. What if a government has a just and honorable figurehead acting as a moral leader, while an effective but amoral person (or persons) acts as the actual power?

Originally posted by Kayless

I agree that a figurehead who serves as a "moral leader" (with no real authority but who can serve to rally the people) is more inspiring then a "task leader". The corrupting influence of power isn't as pronounced with a figurehead (in theory anyway). Of course this relates to another thread, where it was debated whether or not one actually wants a moral or immoral person leading them. Many of history's most effective leaders were not saints. Morality and power are often antithetical. What if a government as a just and honorable figurehead acting as a moral leader, while an effective but amoral person (or persons) acts as the actual power?

It's interesting you make that point. unlike most people, the first person I thought of when I saw this thread was not the Prez, or the Late Queen Mother, but it was J2P2 (Pope John Paul da' 2nd). What I'm thinking is whether or not it is time for a new one. Now, I know what I just asked is "should we kill the Pope?" But that is for a very good reason. Because he is infalable in religious matters (So am I, but why don't anyone listen to my reforms ), he cannot go back on any decisions he has made (lest he be wrong. God forbide the Catholic chruch could be wrong! ). Now, the thing is, he was made Pope during a time when there weren't so many controversial issues (Women in the workplace, racism, etc.) Now a days, we are very concerned with things like that. Does that make his leadership during those days wrong? Not at all. In fact, they could've been very good reforms and decrees. What I'm saying is that the Chruch needs to update, thus new Pope. I'm rambling on, or does this make some sense?

here's my stance on the morality:

i believe that say, the president of the U.S. does not need to be a moral person, that's not what he's here for, he is here to lead the country and do stuff that presidents do, like clinton for example, he did a great job, kept us out of war, the economy was sky high (granted, this was not necesarily his doing) clinton did a fine job, even though he wasn't exactly someone you would want to look up to as a moral leader. This also applies to someone like Tony Blair, i don't think it really matters if he is a moral person, as long as he isn't a psycho murderer bent on taking over the world.

On the other hand, i think that someone like the queen mum should be more moral, she is a leader and should be a role model, people look up to here and try to be like her. She should be more moral.

Now, for the extreme case, i think the Pope should be a very moral person. Millions of people look up to him, and this is just because he is moral, i don't think he should be concerned with the economy or any of that stuff that a president should be concerned with, he should just be there for people to follow his example when faced with a decision, people should be able to say "what would the pope do in this situation" if it's the same thing that bill clinton would do, then maybe a new pope would be needed. i don't think people should say "what would bill clinton do in this situation" that is not the president's job, it is the religious leaders job.

Aragorn, I edited a sentence out of your post, please refrainh from graphic language like that.

whatever

If you look at the most popular presidents in the last century, they were in fact, not very "moral" people. Kennedy and Roosevelt both had lots of extramarital activity as did Ike and LBJ. Does that mean they were ineffective leaders? Of course not. In fact, they were all pretty good leaders.

As our friend Aragorn Returns said, Bill Clinton did a pretty good job as president, even though he's not the kind of guy you'd want to leave alone in a room with your daughter. Still, there's nothing in the president's job description (that would be the Constitution, specifically Article 2) that says the president has to be a stand-up, moral person, it only says that he (or she) has to be commander in chief of the armed forces along with a few other proscribed duties.

What makes leaders effective is their ability to persuade people to follow them. Some are robust, active types (T. Roosevelt) and others are ivory tower intellectuals (W. Wilson). Some lead by fear and intimidation (Saddam Hussein, Slobodon Milosevic), some by birth (the Dali Llama) and some through the force of their charisma (Hitler; remember, he was elected). There is no single effective style; leaders come from all walks of life and all socio-economic classes. Often they're in the right place at the right time.

I'd like to address two issues that have been brought up:

First, Dubya and the events of 11 September. I have been very critical of what Dubya did (and didn't do) after the World Trade Tower and Pentagon attacks. I won't rehash my entire argument here, but suffice it to say that he gave the appearance of turning tail and running. It was exactly the image that made the bad guys howl with laughter and was not the image that the President of the United States needed to project in a moment when the nation needed him the most.

Second, I think that Pope John Paul II should step down and the Roman Catholic church should elect a new Pope. This has nothing to do with whether I like the guy or not (I do; I'm not Catholic, but I think that he has done a lot of good things for the church in the 24 or so years he's been in the papacy), but it's about his health. Aside from the assassination attempt which almost took his life, John Paul II has Parkinson's Disease and a number of other ailments which can't be good for a man his age (82). He hasn't been able to lead the events of Holy Week (the most important week in the Christian calendar) and looks as frail as we've ever seen him.

It is my understanding that the Pope can abdicate to a sort of Pope Emeritus status and a new Pope can be elected; he doesn't have to die in office. John Paul II has done a marvelous job of leading the church through many crises and vicissitudes and the man deserves a break.

It's the whole "leadership from a bunker" mentality that I admit I don't like--and Bush's long flight in September 11th, out of touch with an America (and especially a NYC) that needed him, which suddenly brought this issue into focus for me. I don't think Bush is a coward--or brave; I have no idea what his level of physical bravery is, and I wouldn't want to criticize his. But he took advice to stay up there and not to even speak before the camera or relay a report by radio, and this really does grate on me. It isn't the image that I have of a leader--someone who shares in the dangers and sorrows of the people who elect them, who consoles when consolation is needed--and it isn't the image I want to convey of America standing tall, without fear, putting it on the line against a bunch of terrorists who won't even sign their names to their deeds.

Back in September, overseas when this whole disgusting, sickening mess hit, I did think of how other rulers handled similar situations. The first name at the top of the list was, in fact, good old QM--the Queen Mother, who just died. I did admire her character and humanity. She refused to be flown out the country to Canada, and visited London bomb sites, bomb shelters, and gave speeches even as the Nazis were dropping bombs. She, and others like her (many of whom weren't members of the nobility) showed the British spirit at its finest--some would say, I suppose, it's craziest. But I think it was a great hour. And I think that if Bush had suddenly shown up at a NY airport, addressing the cameras, venting genuine sorrow and a shared sense that "we'd pull through," it would have been a Magic Moment for the history books.

So I don't want leadership from behind. Leaders shouldn't be immune from danger--to the contrary; danger comes with the perk of controlling the future of so many hundreds of millions of people, IMO. I'm not suggesting that any leader should throw themselves into the roadway before speeding cars , but when a firm hand is needed in a matter of crisis, a good leader should be on the spot, as I see it.

As always, I can't disagree with fable. Bush took the safe route, but what do you expect, he's the leader of the worlds most powerful nation, he can't put himself into direct danger. He;s also a conservative.

There are many styles of leadership, from pure charisma, to manipulation. I once wrote an essay on it, but am not sure where I put it... darn
Basically, you can stand up and lead from the front, Rommel style, or stay back and lead from the rear Montgomery style. One instills tha admiration and respect from those in the front lines, but foster the image of a risk taker. The other breeds resentment, but makes sure the leader is safe to make critical decisions. It really depends on the situation and what the "troops" need.

I think that Pope John Paul II should step down and the Roman Catholic

So do I, problem is, he can't. Something about God making a bad call on who is earthly representative is...

And finally, a moment of respect for the departed Queen mum, who has brought the British empire through it's darkest hour with courage, defiance and intergrity. She will be deeply missed I'm sure.

did you guys see that, highlorddave called me "friend"

I was under the impression the Pope could not just "step down". I thought they had to wait for him to die before choosing a new Pope to take over. Interesting.

Originally posted by Aragorn Returns
did you guys see that, highlorddave called me "friend"

Don't take it personally, Aragorn Returns; I call everyone here "our friend" . . .

I am not Catholic, so I could be mistaken when I say that the Pope can abdicate. I will defer to anyone who can speak with authority on this matter.

EDIT: I went to askjeeves.com and asked if a Pope can abdicate and he gave me this response. The source is the Catholic Doors Ministry, but I do not know how authoritative they are.

I will speak with authority saying popes can abdicate (although none has for several hindred years), but cannot be 'sacked'...seeing as noone is in a position of superiority except god...
I think that a President of America needs to be moral, shrewd and charismatic to be a good president. Although maybe it shouldn't be the case, the President has to be a moral and charismatic man to gain the support and favour that he needs to function in the best interests of his country; example The Kennedies whos charisma came from their morality...They could act for the good of the country because the people supported them because the people believed them to be good in a personal way, not just a mean old man acting for the good of the country. I think that all leaderly virtues are inter-dependant and reliant upon one another...

EDIT just noticed my sig clashes a bit with HLD's..ah well, I'll get a new one soon...

hold on, did you just call the kennedy's moral?
the john f. kennedy who had numerous mistresses? namely marilyn monroe, who wore a see-through dress and sang for him at his birthday? i've heard so many different stories of polictical scandals with kennedy it's amazing, this guy rivals clinton in the amount of scandal he's created. in fact, i blame kennedy for making all the following presidents such immoral people. look at all the presidents after kennedy:
L.B.J. - heightens the vietnam war (can't think of anything else, little help on this one?)
Nixon - Watergate, need i say more?
Ford - gets appointed vice president, nixon resigns, ford pardons nixon, coincindence?, was ford just a nice guy? i'll let you decide
Carter - i guess he was pretty moral, but the economy sucked! huge unemployment, only had 1 term
Reagan - Iran- Contra scandal, many people don't think this was a big deal, but IMO i think this shows how immoral this guy was, if you don't care about that, he tripled the national budget.
Bush - Iran-Contra scandal, if that's not enough, the economy sucked.
Clinton - oh boy, Whitewater, pot, and plenty of women.
Dubya - plenty of drugs, drinking, and Enron, maybe more to come.

well, i know i pointed out their faults, but like i said before, i really don't care how moral they are, as long as they're doing their job.