Margaret Thatcher once said, “Being powerful is like being a lady – if you have to say you are, you aren’t.” The same goes for those politicians this year who are saying they’re the best “leader.”
Madeline Albright, former secretary of state during the Clinton administration, recently brought home the subjective nature of the word “leadership.” Alright is not running for president, but this does provide the perfect example of what leadership is not.
At a book signing in Washington, D.C., one of the worst secretaries of state in U.S. history called George W. Bush one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. It takes a worst to know a worst. If Ted Kennedy comes out and calls Capt. Joseph Hazelwood one of the lousiest drivers in history, my day will be complete.
While Albright’s thoughts on Bush aren’t shocking, there is another detail in Albright’s vision for America that shines brightly due to its glaring contradiction. This contradiction has to do with leadership.
One of the reasons why Albright says the Bush presidency is a failure is because she believes the U.S. has done a very poor job of embracing the global view of climate change during W’s tenure. (Just for the record, “climate change” used to be called “global warming,” but became “climate change” because the Gore lemmings got tired of feeling silly for canceling “global warming” conferences due to blizzards – but, at a “climate-change” meeting, attendees can point to either the deep snow or blistering heat and yell, “told you so!”)
Albright’s book is entitled, “Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership.”
Albright insists the next U.S. president should be a leader on the climate change issue. How? By following what everybody else is doing. It’s this kind of “leadership” that is permeating modern American politics.
On the campaign trail this year, words like “leadership,” along with “change,” are dominating stump speeches that then go on to reveal content contradictory to the theme.
Barack Obama says he’ll be a leader in providing “change.” The last time I saw Obama, he was receiving the endorsement of a career Democrat senator who has been dug into Washington so long that he has trench foot: John Kerry. That’s some serious change. Hopefully Mr. Obama doesn’t get offended when he visits Kerry on Nantucket, and he’s asked to be a leader in using the back entrance.
John McCain also says he is the best equipped to “lead” the nation. McCain is a fine patriot of distinguished service, but his Senate career has been fraught with giggly political tickle-fights with liberal “friends from the other side of the aisle” he’s teamed up with for all sorts of bureaucratic over-regulation.
The “McCain-Feingold bill,” the “McCain-Kerrey bill” (Bob Kerrey, D-Neb.), the “McCain-Feinstein bill,” the “McCain-Leahy bill,” the “McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill” and the “McCain-Kerry bill.” As I’ve always said, John McCain’s been in bed with more Democrats than a 20-year veteran Berkeley prostitute. Meeting someone half way between “kind of a lot of over-regulation” and “confiscatory over-regulation” isn’t my idea of leadership.
John Edwards says he’ll be a leader. In most of John Edwards’ professional life outside of politics, the ambulance was the one doing the leading – with Edwards following closely behind. No thanks.
Mike Huckabee says he’ll be a leader, and he’s gained a lot of primary votes. Though I have yet to figure out how much of Huckabee’s support comes from enthusiasm for his leadership skills or out of voters fears of a Chuck Norris butt-whippin.’
Hillary Clinton says she’ll lead, using nothing but the light from a Chinese mining helmet and Karl Marx’s map that leads straight to the “common good.” Given that option, I’ll take my chances leaderless, thank you.
Leadership, besides being a subjective word, has another ingredient: “Great leaders” don’t self-apply that term, but rather have it applied to them meritoriously. Ronald Reagan – a man who believed that “leadership” was ultimately defined not by the number of followers but, rather, the nobility of the destination – comes to mind.
Are there any candidates on the trail who have truly earned the label “leader”? I suppose there are a couple, but they don’t appear to be doing very well so far, which could indicate we’re not really looking for a leader, but rather a nanny – a lead nanny, but a nanny nonetheless.
