Just as the title states, this post provides the opportunity to create your own leader.

I'm continuosly baffled by the decesions we ALL make in choosing our leaders, so heres your chance:

What would be his/her qualities?
What would be his/her stance on relevant issues like the economy/race relations/abortion/the death penalty/globalization/the prison industry, etc.

After you list these qualities, think to yourself if the current candidates for the presidency echo your own personal desires in a leader.

I'm really interested to hear what some of the more politically minded Okayplayers (i.e. Krewcial, Janey, k_orr, etc.) think. I believe that pinpointing what we want in a leader will allow us to make better choices. Anyway...

endulge me...
I'll be back later

peace

I think the perfect leader would have the ability to unify all of his or her followers. Since you cant make every single person happy, you would have to make every single person absolutely hate you. Being the leader may not be the best job in the world, but before they put your head in the guiottine, you could use the hatred as an excuse for unifying the people.

>
>What would be his/her qualities?
>What would be his/her stance on
>relevant issues like the economy/race
>relations/abortion/the death penalty/globalization/the prison industry,
>etc.
>
I'm kind of overwhelmed b/c at times, I seriously believe I don't know what a leader is b/c we are continually given "leaders" who don't necessarily represent us.
To me, a leader is not exclusively down for one cause and just shafts another group but I find that kind of contradictory b/c I would rather have someone in power who stands for something and is firm in that belief.
To me, this semi-perfect leader believes in women's right, no death penalty (because it doesn't solve anything), down for public education and up for divulging more money into it. Better teacher training and better pay in some areas in this country. A leader will acknowledge that there some race representation issues in certain political arenas (Congress, locally) and will begin encouraging "minorities" (I hate that word, somebody give me another) to raise up and earn their political power and represent their communities.
A good leader will say enuf to buliding more prisons (as if we need anymore), let's try to rehabilitate some of these fools and find different alternatives to petty criminals. THere should also be a cut or a reduction in some of these government agencies that are irrelevant or unnecessary these days. I can't think of anything off the bat b/c i'm overwhelmed by this post.
I want a leader who is down for welfare and understand that some people cannot live off of this and maybe there should be some assitance tohelp get people off of the system. I totally respect welfare in all of its degrees but there has to be better regulation in this. The welfare system has to be monitored better.
I want a leader who is open-minded and willing to compromise. There are more important issues to battle besides making laws banning same sex marriages and oral sex. I also want a leader who doesn't get in the mix of relgiious law (look out Catholic Church). Religion should be a personal choice and if there's a school of 99 Christians and 1 Muslim, he/she should dismiss his/herself during prayer. It's not that big a deal! People tend to blow things out of proportion and take ish personally. If certain things do not conform to his/her beliefs then don't take part and don't take it as a personal shaft. I don't agree with prayer in schools, b/c our kids are not their to get their righteousness fix for the day, they are there to get an education.

Basically, I just want a leader who is open-minded, strong, up for criticism, and about the business. And his/her personal life shouldn't affect his sense of leadership. I guess I want a leader that thinks like me, which is totally idealistic...Does this person exist?

>After you list these qualities, think
>to yourself if the current
>candidates for the presidency echo
>your own personal desires in
>a leader.

Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure whoever puts more money into his campaign (Bush) will win. Did I mention that I"m afraid that Bush will win?? More money, more power. It's definitely the good ol boy system at work.
>
Peace
A
"If I ever see you walking, I wouldn't know what to say,...hey you..." Groove Theory song...

"It's nation time!" -- Leroi Jones AKA Amiri Baraka

"You do me so wrong...you love me so right..." Groove theory song, again...

"Tickle his ass or something..." Chris Rock

"If I knew you were coming, I would have opened my doors and swept the wind beneath my kisses...you blow me away with your love that is so right and so light in my heart...I feel the shutters and the flutters of its beat, beat, beating, rushing me with heat..."
Me, damnit, just a peek at my poetry

I saw this when you first posted it, and I've been mulling the question over for the last several days. It's a much more difficult question than it seems at first, especially in view of some of the things I've been reading and thinking about lately having to do with the role of the individual in society, and I'm not going to be able to do your question justice. But here are the general directions that my thoughts have been going.

First, I have to accept that the person who seems to me to embody the qualities that I respect and follow is almost certain to fall into one of the following categories: (1) not charismatic, (2) focusing on smaller groups or one-on-one as the means to change and growth, (3) not seeking public approval, but operating instead from a perspective of personal integrity. Each of these attributes make the person whom I would follow un-electable.

Second, I accept that the presidency is primarily a diplomatic and figurehead position. There are certain key things that a president does or can do (or refuse to do) that will impact my life, but in general who the president is has remarkably little impact on my life.

In order to reach a high elected position, each person is forced to appeal to a larger and larger group of people. The more individuals there are in a group, the more divergent the attitudes, opinions, priorities and needs of that group. Thus, when we reach a point of trying to find one person to stand as the figurehead of this very large country, we must realistically expect that person to try to appeal to as many different groups as possible and to offend as few as possible. Strategic alliances will be struck among groups that have little in common other than a single specific interest. Strategic offensives will be directed toward dispossessed groups that do not weigh heavily in the voting population.

Essentially the presidential election is a gigantic popularity contest among a small group of people, usually men, usually white, who think so highly of themselves that they believe that they can bring accord to discordant groups. But the goal in general is the greater glory of the person who is standing for election, rarely if ever the needs and dreams of the country. Think about how badly you must want the presidency in order to do all that is necessary to achieve it. Think about the marriages of convenience, the hidden agendas, the subjugation of personal desires so as to appear non-controversial, all of which are required if you want the media and the population as a whole to stay on your side. Think about the months and years spent touring on a speaking circuit for which the topic is "Why You Should Vote For Me (and Make Donations to Me)."

The people that I have met and known personally or through their writings that I trust to have something more than absolute self-interest at the heart of what they do are the kind of people for whom this kind of self-aggrandizement holds no interest. So the people that I take as my examples, who are my own leaders, tend to be people who won't be elected into public office but who, I am convinced, will ultimately change the world, through the ripple effect that individual action creates.

I have often said or implied in my posts that I have a real belief in the ability of the individual to make an enormous difference in the world. Every major social movement is the coming together of hundreds of thousands of individuals. I think that it is important that we work for social change, but I don't see it coming from the presidency. Certainly not in this generation. And I believe that the single most important thing that any person can do is to uplift him or herself, to raise his or her own conscious awareness to a level that can encompass the largest number of people. I am certain that there are people, especially on the community level, who seek public office because by taking that office, they see a way that they can make a difference. But once you reach the level of the presidency, it's primarily a placebo or modelling job or some such.

There are examples of presidents who have taken a stand of personal integrity and have introduced legislation to Congress that made an enormous difference in each of our lives. There are examples of presidents who have quite seriously strived to be the best individual that they can be while in office. I'm thinking about Lyndon Johnson and the "Great Society" legislation. I'm thinking about Jimmy Carter, who refused to start a war in Iran when the hostages were taken and who quite explicitly acknowledged that he was a human person on a path of growth toward awareness. The Johnson and Carter administrations are among the most vilified in our history, for a whole variety of reasons. People hated Johnson for the mess that he continued in Vietnam and the lies that he told Congress regarding the Gulf of Tonkin. But the closer you examine Johnson the person, the more you realize that he himself felt that his was a Faustian pact in which in order to achieve the societal goods that he was searching for, he had to implement some evils. I disagree that he had to do so (and his advisors were clearly driven by their own agenda), but I honor his purer motives. With respect to Carter, after what everyone believes was a "failed" presidency, he has gone on to show us what service, true service, can do. Habitat for the Homeless is a wonderful project that is ultimately about community outreach and community acceptance. Carter is now seen as an elder statesman who is brought into sticky negotiations because he has an ability to bring about accords -- precisely because of the very small amount of ego that he brings to the table.

Here's another example from my home state of California. Jerry Brown, now mayor of Oakland, former governor of California, is laughed off the scene when he considers national office. This is a man who quite sincerely is a seeker, who chose not to live in the gubernatorial mansion because he believed it to be inappropriate to live in such splendor when so many in this state are seeking a way out of cardboard boxes and homeless shelters, who when he left office had created a budget surplus for the state.

I can't choose or even really define a leader who would be both whole-heartedly acceptable to me and who would also be acceptable to the country, because the ultimate issues with which elections are concerned and the ultimate issues with which I find myself concerned seem to be based in different realities. Personal integrity, mindfulness, lovingkindness, service, and an integration of spirit don't seem to be at the top of most people's agenda when they're running for national political office, but these are the kinds of things I look for when determining whether to place my trust in someone.

But of course this doesn't mean that I won't be voting.

Peace.

He was okay with Black people, but wasn't with Latinos. If you study his early career with the FDR programs in Texas, you start to see it.

But all in all he was a good president.

peace
k. orr

I agree that he was an incredibly conflicted man, who was better suited for coalition building in Congress as opposed to spearheading programs for which he had to provide a quid pro quo.

It is said that he was just a lovely person, particularly toward the end of his life, and that he was tormented by his own sense of responsibility for Vietnam until his death.


Peace.

>I'm really interested to hear what
>some of the more politically
>minded Okayplayers (i.e. Krewcial, Janey,
>k_orr, etc.) think.

What? cuz somebody buys shooz they aren't welcomed to your little discussion????

Live from the Shoe Sto'
Nushooz
I,I, I Can't Wait!

A LOT of names weren't listed. There's just about a gazillion folks who think really hard about issues and post here that didn't get mentioned but you KNOW that doesn't mean that your thoughts aren't welcome. Don't you too find that right when you're in the middle of a serious post you blank out on the specific detail that would make your point so perfectly? I'm not particularly political, so while I was flattered to be mentioned, I figured that this short list was more about whose postings were fresh in Phraktal's mind rather than who thinks about big picture stuff. We all do.

Soo..... what do you think?

Peace.

...pleading for attention is soooo not cute (don't turn into fire) :-)

nushooz, i'm surprised at you. if you need a hug just ask for one.
------QUOTE STARTS HERE------
BooDaah-OkayActivist Moderator
** PLEASE READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES:
http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines.html
-----------------------------
Sister SheRise's Activist Stew Recipe:
Step1:inform yourself step/Step2:inform others/Step3:discuss the problem/Step4: DISCUSS SOLUTIONS/Step5:EXECUTE SOLUTIONS/Step6:evaluate the results/Step7:start over at 1 until desired result is accomplished.
-----------------------------

Isn't that an individual beef better addressed via email? As opposed to NuShooz' concern, which may be shared by others, that perhaps only certain viewpoints were being requested?

Really only kidding. You know I lub ya :-)



Peace.

>Isn't that an individual beef better
>addressed via email?

yeah!!! don't you hate hypocritical moderators (elitist judgemental bastards)

>As opposed to NuShooz' concern, which
>may be shared by others,
>that perhaps only certain viewpoints
>were being requested?

Personally I didn't read it that way. It just seemed like whining :-)

>I lub ya :-)

:-) backatcha

------QUOTE STARTS HERE------
BooDaah-OkayActivist Moderator
** PLEASE READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES:
http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines.html
-----------------------------
Sister SheRise's Activist Stew Recipe:
Step1:inform yourself step/Step2:inform others/Step3:discuss the problem/Step4: DISCUSS SOLUTIONS/Step5:EXECUTE SOLUTIONS/Step6:evaluate the results/Step7:start over at 1 until desired result is accomplished.
-----------------------------

No, just joking. sorry that it was taken so seriously....i was my intention to come back and post ANYWAY......I thought you knew. Post follows....

Live from the Shoe Sto'
NuShooz
I,I, I Can't Wait!

Everyone is included in this discussion. I should have never mentioned names in the first place.:-)

Just some things that I want to address...

I agree that the leader I would choose would take more of a "grassroots" approach. As stated in a previous post I also believe the presdidency is more of a charisma profile than a choice between who has a sincere desire to help the country (with a few exceptions). I find it hard that a country so large as the US can choose an objective leader that can satisfy the diversity of this nations needs.

Someone also mentioned that an effective leader can unify by making everyone hate them. While this was probably a tongue in cheek response, it actually holds A LOT of weight. The first thought that comes to mind is Hitler. He was an effective leader in his own right, and his actions, though hideous, mobilized a whole world war around him. The result of his actions changed the world as we know it.

Personally, I believe a leader should jolt people out of their complacency. To me that's the only way to spark action. I just don't see that ability in ANY of these candidates. When you try to please so many people your influence and power become diluted (as Janey stated).

I hate to say this, but I truly believe things NEED to get worse in this country before they get better. I don't know, a stock market crash, a facist like George W. getting elected? What a wake up call!

Peace...

IT'S REALLY OK. :*
I know you didn't. I'm going to get some of this discussion, anyway....

I was glad to see the post. So many people complaing about what we have and what we don't have AND the lack of a definite leader in the Black community....
I was searching for a post such as yours on the very day I responded.

Thanks for it {the post} Sorry for the misunderstanding.....

Live and Still buying shooz
NuShooz
I,I, I Can't Wait!

I'm sorry if this isn't exactly what you wanted, but I just wanted to speak my piece in this discussion.
It's time that people realize that waiting for a leader to come along is just the thing that will set us back and keep us from progressing.
We are all leaders, but some of us just don't know it.
This thing that they call the "president" is just propaganda that was created by the elites to keep the masses under control and to keep us thinking that the fate of our lives lie within this body.


"Maybe that's why I'm so exhausted
as a revolutionary
I realize I can't save everyone
I'm trying to save myself
and I'm afraid"- Pamela Sneed

Are we talking about candidates?

>What would be his/her qualities?

Someone who is willing to lose an election because of their principals. It would have been tight if Colin Powell would get nominated by the Republicans, and then got in office and left the Republican party. Use the organization as a vehicle to get into power, and then use your 4 years to make some serious change.

>What would be his/her stance on
>relevant issues like the

Economy - more development of capital, education, and poor regions. I would try and make it more economically feasible for companies to locate heavy low-skill type industries in America as opposed to Mexico, or other places. But I would start something like MITI. The Japanese have an entire industrial espionage/information gathering arm of the government. I would try to do that here. I do not know how I could improve the patent system though. And the copywright stuff is worrisome.

race - I don't know if a President can really address it. But I would do things on the low. I would appoint the right federal judges, staff my cabinet with folks who can handle some business. See if I have the authority to really fire some bureaucrats. But that having been said, I have worked for the IRS who is horribly inefficient. I don't know what it would take to decrease the bloat though.

abortion -> I would give the 10% of OB/Gyn's a tax credit for performing a legal service. I would make it a federal crime to assault these doctors.

>the death penalty - You can't eliminate the Fed death penalty cause it's in the constitution for those that commit treason. But I would have a hardcore review of every single Fed. Death penalty case. In terms of the states, I would finagle congress to w.draw funding for state dept of corrections that permit the death penalty.

>/globalization - Presidential mandate to teach all children at least one additional language, and I would encourage them to go abroad for a year before college in order to become fluent. I think Australia has something along those lines.

/the prison industry, -> are we talking about private citizens using prison labor? It's a hard one. If an American company wants work done, I would prefer to see it on our soil rather than in another country. I would set up a condition that if a company wanted to do business in jail, they would have to hire the person once they were released from jail.

>After you list these qualities, think
>to yourself if the current
>candidates for the presidency echo
>your own personal desires in
>a leader.

I know Bush and Gore aren't interested. I doubt Buchanan and Nader are thinking the same things too.

peace
k. orr

Would it in fact be appropriate for an elected official to turn against the interests of the very people who elected him/her? Really, now, would it? Isn't the whole idea of a representative government that we elect people who as closely as possible align with our viewpoints? And don't we get really angry with elected officials who don't follow through -- or don't follow through vehemently enough -- on their campaign promises?

Really, this is a serious question. Is it ever justifiable for an individual to accept public office and then turn his back on the very people that put him there?

Peace.

the driving factor of MOST politicians is RE-ELECTION.....for whatever reason....good/bad or indifferent.....
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, yes, it's political suicide to turn your back on the very people that got you elected.

I get mad when politicians don't follow through. My recourse? Take away the very thing that they need - my vote. The thought of re-election will make politicians do MANY things.

Live from the Shoe Sto'
NuShooz
I,I, I Can't Wait!

>the driving factor of MOST politicians
>is RE-ELECTION.....for whatever reason....good/bad or
>indifferent.....

exactly. That's why it would be a do or die mission.

peace
k. orr

What I really meant was: Is it ethical? Is it the Right thing to do? Assume for a moment that the person is driven by motives of service rather than of self-esteem. If the person who is elected by a majority of voters strives to serve those who elected him/her, then to take a stand that is diametrically opposed to the ideas/ideals of that majority is to abandon the service, isn't it?

There are protections for the minority built into the system via the judiciary. The protections for the majority are built into the elected offices.

Seriously, would it be a moral thing to do?

Peace.

In general it would be immoral to vote against the wishes of your polity. We know that politicians have to make tough decisions all the time, and often have to form coalitions, or make deals in order to get things done. So the occassional vote against the polity is expected.

But are their cases where a politician without any other political objective, can morally govern against the wishes of his constituents?

- when the professed and popular wishes are against the polity's better interest.

I can think of some hypothetical instances such as voting against the location of a military installation in one's own district. In addition to getting an Army Base, the Senator might know that a top secret chemical and bioweapon storage facility would be located in his district. Perhaps we could be talking about a nuclear facility. Because of their top secret nature the politician would not be at liberty to divulge the fact that there are potential hazards at a facility, but he would be morally right to vote against it. It's like a parent not letting a child have a pellet gun despite lucid arguments from the child.

A Senator ,who is less vulnerable to popular whims, might have to make a career of those tough choices. And you also run into the problem of whose morality is more moral. Ultimately that is what it comes down to, but it can't be solved neatly on paper. And Americans love elegant solutions.

But going back to the idea of a stealth candidate, I do not think it would be moral. I doubt that any one could justify it.

peace,
k. orr

>Would it in fact be appropriate
>for an elected official to
>turn against the interests of
>the very people who elected
>him/her?

Define appropriate?

Have we not had many officials that have turned their backs on their constituency? Are there not instances in recent congressional sessions of elected officials changing party?

Really, now, would
>it? Isn't the whole
>idea of a representative government
>that we elect people who
>as closely as possible align
>with our viewpoints?

We elect representatives to office. But how closely they mirror our own thoughts is suspect, particularly in the light of PAC's, special interests, and lobby groups.

And
>don't we get really angry
>with elected officials who don't
>follow through

So we are angry all the time.

-- or don't
>follow through vehemently enough --
>on their campaign promises?

We don't re-elect them.

>Really, this is a serious question.
> Is it ever justifiable
>for an individual to accept
>public office and then turn
>his back on the very
>people that put him there?

It might not be justifiable, but it is common. Just like speeding. As voters our only check is to elect someone else.

As a politician practically the only responsibility you have is to yourself. If you decided not to be come a career politician, then your interests change.

hotep,
k. orr

Irrespective of what is done all the time or what the practical considerations are, is this something that a person of integrity would do?

Peace.

Yes. I think a person who believed in something strongly enough would. Despite the decades of lying and backstabbing. Basically the ends would justify the means.

peace
k. orr

How can one person presume to make the decision to reject the goals/ideals of the people s/he was elected to represent?

Doesn't that argue in favor of the electoral college, which some here have said is outdated and inappropriate? Doesn't that argue in favor of me taking justice into my own hands whenever I feel certain that I know who the perpetrator of a crime is? What if the person that we elect on a relatively left-leaning platform were to suddenly become vehemently anti-abortion, say, or anti-civil rights, or something along those lines?

See, I always try to test the way I get to the outcome by how it would be if it were used against me, and in this instance, I don't like what I see.

What does a representative government mean, anyway? I mean, there's certainly room for us to believe that on certain issues the representative is better informed, but a radical change of an entire politic?

Peace.

just for sport?????

When I saw this post, I was gathering my thoughts in terms of addressing the question of the thinking Black populous: Where are our leaders? Who galvanizes us? Who motivates us? Is it Jessie "Rhyming" Jackson? Is it Can't talk right now I gotta a hair appointment Al Sharpton? Is it "I'm facing my own mortality" Louis Farrakhan? Is it QuestLove?

Can we align some of these characteristics that we outline here with some one already existent in our community OR build some body like we're dong here? What? Could it be Colin Powell?

When I heard about Tavis Smiley et al building a new paridigm it made me wonder again about the Civil Rights Movement and how we were moved as a people - as humans (because there were non-Black people that made sacrifices too) but under the leadership of a cause that initiated as one of color but..... And what is it that we had that we can't seem to get now. Would a leader-defined here- help us?

Prak, I know this isn't what you had in mind, but can we pick a president when it seems that we've lost the kind of cohesion that it takes to start a Movement?

Sorry.

Live from the Shoe Sto'
NuShooz
I,I, I Can't Wait!

Indeed!

My initial intent was to get a discussion going about what kind of qualities a real leader would have. The presidency seemed to be an interesting topic on the boards AND I didn't wan't to alienate any non-black Okayplayers. (even though by doing so I've alienated any non-american Okayplayer, sorry :-()

However, I truly believe that Blacks in this country need a lot more than a president who is "sensitive" to the needs of our community.

That being said, by all means we should list the qualities and stances of a potential Black leader.

Since were in the age of science fiction merging with reality we create a leader. It will be one the most dangerous mission ever known to man.

The Project: X Factor

Subject Name: Matrix

Support Unit: X-Force

We should extract DNA and Melanin from some of the greatest brothers the world has ever known. Let be known every Intel unit from FBI, CIA, M-I6, and the Mossad will be after us. Dr. Diop extracted Melanin from mummies which prove they were Black.

We will raid Martin Luther King Jr. Tomb

Malcolm X

Marcus Garvey

Imhotep

Gen. Daniel Chappie James

Kinapped Colin Powell's DNA

and many others.

We can use microchips in his Brain for mental interface. He shall also have unique regenerative properties.

Hey Phraktal remember this debate came up one time in the last season of Star Trek: TNG. It was the Kahless episode. Worf was trying to seek his spirituality while meditating. Then Kahless appeared who was the first warrior leader of the Klingon Empire. later to fing out he was a genetic clone. There was a big debate between religous leaders and Gowron on accepting Kahless. The Worf said "Power Comes fron the Heart." if your cause is rightous you will have those to honor you and follow you.