|
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.
~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha
|\_/|
='_'=
Every hundred years, all new people
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Activist Archives
) 