We have a Republic at risk while you can't see the forest for the trees. Ethics should dispel and not increase mental fog. Movers and shakers you counsel need to make timely decisions. You can begin to set an example.
You're aware, no doubt, that people on the other side are saying exactly the same thing. But, of course, you know that you're right and they're wrong. Nothing more to talk about.
Luckily for the people, their job of identifying good leaders won't be very hard this time around, because there are none in this cycle. The only ones that come close to at least having a bent toward some kind of actual leadership is Trump and RFK, but Trump's character is certainly in question and some of RFK's policies are just whacked. Biden and Harris are just plain idiots who don't have leadership capability OR good character (in fact, both have been proven liars just recently, along with the rest of their party, public affairs, and media that covered up Biden having brain-pudding and telling everyone for years that everything was fine). Any other potential leaders are not gaining traction, like Dean Phillips and Tim Scott.
Our best, real leadership potential this election went out the window when Republicans weren't smart enough to pick Haley in the primary. She has been the only candidate, thus far, capable of understanding the need to bring people together and get them to rise above their differences. This was a major part of her campaign, and she was the ONLY candidate who positioned that in her campaign, especially when it came to something as divisive as abortion.
Read her speeches about abortion. That was true leadership, bringing everyone into the fold, acknowledging the differences (the starkest, for this issue), and speaking in a manner that could get people to rise above those differences, even while pushing for a specifically conservative direction and not just a middle-of-the-road position (that's where Trump is, actually). On top of that, she's smart. She is the only candidate who made a lot of out loud, multiple predictions that have, so far, all been coming true, to include Harris becoming the Democratic candidate. There is a reason why she attracted so many independents and Democrats alike, as well as a solid chunk of Republicans. The rest of the Republicans foolishly thought it was because she was too liberal and voted against her because of it, despite having solid, conservative stances. The reality was she cared more about conservatism and leadership, and less about populism and revenge.
At this point, our closest choice to leadership mixed with proven, good policies is Trump. He is the only one of the main candidates that acts like an adult (mostly, this time around), and he is out there grinding like one too, even taking a bullet for it, among so much more they have thrown at him. His character is garbage, but I will take junk character/good policy over bad policy/good character any day. I'm not happy about it, but policy is what affects all our lives the most, and most of his policy choices have been proven to work (all of Haley's have been proven to work).
Does bad character affect policy? Yes, but that is one of the uses for the Rule of Law. It stifles the effect of bad character because it makes the policy too invincible to easily be changed like yesterday's cloths coupled with bad character. This is why strict interpretation of the Constitution is important. This is also why we are not ruled by one person, so that no one person has all the say. Bad policy, on the other hand, does next to nothing to negatively affect good character, and that unharmed character doesn't do anything good for anyone else while they suffer under all the bad policy.
I've been an avid Haley fan since she was UN ambassador. Maybe she'll get traction down the line. As long as the extreme wings control the primaries, it's going to be an uphill battle.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
We have a Republic at risk while you can't see the forest for the trees. Ethics should dispel and not increase mental fog. Movers and shakers you counsel need to make timely decisions. You can begin to set an example.
You're aware, no doubt, that people on the other side are saying exactly the same thing. But, of course, you know that you're right and they're wrong. Nothing more to talk about.
I agree on all counts.
And therein lies the problem.
Luckily for the people, their job of identifying good leaders won't be very hard this time around, because there are none in this cycle. The only ones that come close to at least having a bent toward some kind of actual leadership is Trump and RFK, but Trump's character is certainly in question and some of RFK's policies are just whacked. Biden and Harris are just plain idiots who don't have leadership capability OR good character (in fact, both have been proven liars just recently, along with the rest of their party, public affairs, and media that covered up Biden having brain-pudding and telling everyone for years that everything was fine). Any other potential leaders are not gaining traction, like Dean Phillips and Tim Scott.
Our best, real leadership potential this election went out the window when Republicans weren't smart enough to pick Haley in the primary. She has been the only candidate, thus far, capable of understanding the need to bring people together and get them to rise above their differences. This was a major part of her campaign, and she was the ONLY candidate who positioned that in her campaign, especially when it came to something as divisive as abortion.
Read her speeches about abortion. That was true leadership, bringing everyone into the fold, acknowledging the differences (the starkest, for this issue), and speaking in a manner that could get people to rise above those differences, even while pushing for a specifically conservative direction and not just a middle-of-the-road position (that's where Trump is, actually). On top of that, she's smart. She is the only candidate who made a lot of out loud, multiple predictions that have, so far, all been coming true, to include Harris becoming the Democratic candidate. There is a reason why she attracted so many independents and Democrats alike, as well as a solid chunk of Republicans. The rest of the Republicans foolishly thought it was because she was too liberal and voted against her because of it, despite having solid, conservative stances. The reality was she cared more about conservatism and leadership, and less about populism and revenge.
At this point, our closest choice to leadership mixed with proven, good policies is Trump. He is the only one of the main candidates that acts like an adult (mostly, this time around), and he is out there grinding like one too, even taking a bullet for it, among so much more they have thrown at him. His character is garbage, but I will take junk character/good policy over bad policy/good character any day. I'm not happy about it, but policy is what affects all our lives the most, and most of his policy choices have been proven to work (all of Haley's have been proven to work).
Does bad character affect policy? Yes, but that is one of the uses for the Rule of Law. It stifles the effect of bad character because it makes the policy too invincible to easily be changed like yesterday's cloths coupled with bad character. This is why strict interpretation of the Constitution is important. This is also why we are not ruled by one person, so that no one person has all the say. Bad policy, on the other hand, does next to nothing to negatively affect good character, and that unharmed character doesn't do anything good for anyone else while they suffer under all the bad policy.
Haley/2028
I've been an avid Haley fan since she was UN ambassador. Maybe she'll get traction down the line. As long as the extreme wings control the primaries, it's going to be an uphill battle.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Makes me think of the late George Carlin. "In America, anyone can become president. That's the problem.”
Or Douglass Adams who said, "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should not be allowed to do the job."
I've had similar thoughts myself, David: anyone who wants the job of president should be automatically disqualified.
Moses didn't want leadership. But perhaps his position was different since he was appointed by G-d.
Jeremiah as well. They both tried to argue their way out of the job, then stepped up because the job needed to be done.