Who needs leadership?

[Kitch]

I really hate all this talk about leadership. What does it mean that Steven Harper is a better leader than Stephan Dion? Really, what does that mean? To label one a leader implies that others are followers... does it not?

If we're talking leadership 'on the economy', then really we're referring to a good accountant. But what does managing my personal finances have to do with the management of a nation's finances? (I know how they're related but they're not similar... for those who would love to use this statement as an indication of my naivety).

If we're talking leadership on keeping Canada "safe and secure" (other than using American political language in order to imply some things about the world and Canada in that world), then really we're referring to one's willingness to pull a metaphorical trigger.

If we're talking leadership 'on the environment', then really we're referring to somebody who makes policies/regulations that police people in such a way so as to cause a change that (agree or disagree) is better for everyone/everything in the long run.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've got enough confidence in myself to live my life the way that I see fit. I don't need somebody telling me that I ought to do this or ought not do that. Our choice of political leaders is nothing more than an attempt to control those who have different political views from our own.

I am very near as far as you can get on the left of the spectrum, so I'd like to see a government that prevents business from being more powerful/important than individuals. I think that a totally free market is as dangerous/impossible as is a totally communist society (REAL Marxist, with no monetary system... not the Soviet quasi-communism that people use as the standard). So I'd like to see rules with regard to how businesses interact with each other and with citizens so as to prevent people from being negatively impacted through "externalities".

But for people on the right of the spectrum, this type of regulation (I presume) is seen as a hindrance to an individual's ability to 'succeed' (however one might define that). So people subscribing to this perspective would benefit from a government that advocates for business rights over individual rights... even if a right wing/conservative person views business rights as the same as or equally important to individual rights.

So really, the discussion about who would be the 'best' leader is irrelevant. We're all looking for people who will advocate for our own social ideals... we're not looking for some one who tells us what to do or how to live. On the contrary, if we are lucky enough to have our chosen "leader" elected, we want that person to tell OTHERS how to live.

Any thoughts?

[Bodhi]

Leadership is more about guiding, inspiring, evoking change. Maybe you're referring to Management which is a completely different ballgame. A leadership deficit we have. Managers, we have a lot.

[Kitch]

But what kind of leadership do 'we' need? I can't think of a thing that I could/would look to the Prime Minister to find out how to do/what to do.

I understand what you're saying and agree with the distinction between guidance and management, but is guidance what we want from a politician?

I contend that we don't. Most of us know what we want out of a government, even if we don't know how to articulate it or are disinterested in trying to (not really fair of me to presume to know that... I know). Therefore, the discussion of leadership in this election is nothing more than a distraction... maybe it's intentional, maybe not. But it's a distraction none the less.

[Bodhi]

But what kind of leadership do 'we' need? I can't think of a thing that I could/would look to the Prime Minister to find out how to do/what to do.

I understand what you're saying and agree with the distinction between guidance and management, but is guidance what we want from a politician?

I contend that we don't. Most of us know what we want out of a government, even if we don't know how to articulate it or are disinterested in trying to (not really fair of me to presume to know that... I know). Therefore, the discussion of leadership in this election is nothing more than a distraction... maybe it's intentional, maybe not. But it's a distraction none the less.

What we need? I would argue we need self leadership. Being masters of our own capacities and potentialities. There is far too much waste. But that deviates a little from the scope of the discussion.

People want different things from politicians. Some people want the politicians to play the role of Godfathers. Others want them to establish institutions. Others want them to beef up the institutions, while others want them to safeguard the current quality of the system. Personally, I want our Politicians to inspire us to and evoke radical innovation which takes us to the next step in our societal evolution. It only makes sense, as we already have solid institutions and a stable society. What we need i would argue is to innovate with the challenges of today AND tomorrow. Particularly, a more globalized but still very fragmented world, climate change, etc.

I very strongly believe that Canada is in a pristine position to play a pivotal role in these challenges.

As for the electioneering of the word leadership. Its plainly a populist attempt and evoking peoples basic instinct of red-meat-eating protection. I have seen some subtle semblances of real leadership in the campaign, but not enough to inspire a critical mass.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Interesting point Bo, but I'm not sure I agree. I do not believe the government is where we should turn for societal changes, historically governments respond to societal changes. As for leadership, that has been a many edged sword, for example, Harper went to Bali and played the spoiler, according to the left he is a disgrace because he went against the chattering masses and stood his ground. To me we should be very happy with him because his position in the long run will do infinitely more good by forcing the big polluters to the table something no other western leader had the nerve to do.

[Bodhi]

Thanks for your reply S.M

his position in the long run will do infinitely more good by forcing the big polluters to the table something no other western leader had the nerve to do.

Can you elaborate on that please.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Harper refused most of the developed world leaders in making environmental commitments while China, India and others sat on the sidelines. He stood his ground and China blinked. His political sense may have been superior to all the China appeasers, he had to know that China would back down with the Olympics on the horizon. That may well go down as a turning point in the environmental movement. The next time we go to the table with China having committed to progress.

[Kitch]

What we need? I would argue we need self leadership. Being masters of our own capacities and potentialities. There is far too much waste. But that deviates a little from the scope of the discussion.

People want different things from politicians. Some people want the politicians to play the role of Godfathers. Others want them to establish institutions. Others want them to beef up the institutions, while others want them to safeguard the current quality of the system. Personally, I want our Politicians to inspire us to and evoke radical innovation which takes us to the next step in our societal evolution. It only makes sense, as we already have solid institutions and a stable society. What we need i would argue is to innovate with the challenges of today AND tomorrow. Particularly, a more globalized but still very fragmented world, climate change, etc.

I don't think your point deviates from the scope of the discussion at all. On the contrary it IS the main point of the discussion. Even when you say you want your politicians to be inspirational... that's not leadership either, nor is it guidance. On top of that, it's a single perspective of what the government ought to be. My tone might sound confrontational, but it's not. How can I refute you for your wants?

What I'm trying to say is that leadership from a politician is a ridiculous concept. NONE of us need to follow our politicians. I'd even say that we don't need them as guides. The function of government, at it's most basic level, is to determine what is legal and what is illegal... and what to do with tax revenue. Of what relevance is that to a typical citizen's life? (In terms of guidance/leadership). We elect politicians that we think will create/keep laws that we agree with. But how many people in Canada actually agree or are even close to agreement on ALL laws? Think of Alberta as compared to Ontario? Edmonton compared to Toronto! We don't have the same needs/desires. All that I can do is vote for a politician that I think will support a societal framework that I like and will (for lack of a better word) force those who don't agree to live by it.

I guess I have two points. Leadership 'capabilities' of a politician are irrelevant and that Canada is far too big and diverse for a lot of people to be truly happy with any government.

[Bodhi]

Harper refused most of the developed world leaders in making environmental commitments while China, India and others sat on the sidelines. He stood his ground and China blinked. His political sense may have been superior to all the China appeasers, he had to know that China would back down with the Olympics on the horizon. That may well go down as a turning point in the environmental movement. The next time we go to the table with China having committed to progress.

So if i understand you correctly: Harper's work in the UN climate change conference in Bali (Dec 2007) is beneficial to the fight against pollution and climate change because it prodded China to commit to tangible progress?

Is that right?

[Bodhi]

We don't have the same needs/desires. All that I can do is vote for a politician that I think will support a societal framework that I like and will (for lack of a better word) force those who don't agree to live by it.

Why do you think that we don't have the same/similar needs/desires?

[Kitch]

Why do you think that we don't have the same/similar needs/desires?

Well, I'll try to say what I think I know about what other people want... I feel very arrogant for doing that but, none the less:

People in different regions of the country rely on different industries to earn a living. Forestry might be big in Ontario and BC but not so much in Saskatchewan, for example. There are many more examples of course. Also, people seem to have different societal values in different regions. Come to down town Toronto and you'll find some of the most liberal (not the party) people in North America, whereas I believe people in cities in Alberta are quite a bit more conservative. People in Quebec have concerns about the French language, people in Vancouver have concerns about drugs on the streets, people in the GTA (generally) want tighter gun control while people in Northern Ontario and the West don't.

There seems to be concentrations of people with similar societal values separated geographically. It doesn't make sense to create a legal system that applies to people who have different values if they're not totally integrated... which we're not.