The question is where have all the leaders gone? What’s at the core of their demise?
My definition of a leader: able to define a context and frame the problem statement that enlists broad consensus because he or she elevates our best selves to respond to the core issue at stake.
This is the problem in our system. The context requires long-term thinking that will not satisfy immediate gratification and may, in fact, require sacrifice on all levels – individuals, government, and business.
My wife and I saw a tape on PBS last night of the Nixon/Kennedy debates in 1960. Wow, what a contrast to current affairs. The amount of data and analysis they used was remarkable. While Nixon had sweat on his chin that cost him the election that then set a a style over substance frame, both were clearly well-versed on the details that supported their views, and they spoke as if their audience wasn’t stoned on crack cocaine. However, their philosophical differences were in line with the differences today.
But the context of the 21st century is not the same. Politics have not evolved with the times.
If one takes as the point of departure that the 21st century is really the first historic chance to destroy most of all life of all species via several methods – from WMD, to genetic engineering, to environmental degradation, to population explosion, to …. The speed of technology is outracing the moral systems that govern it, because cultures change slowly, while science, for good and ill, is exploding. One problem is that science and ethics currently are perceived as being in separate buckets.
Of all the institutions I disrespect in America, the press is at the top of the list. They tell us what happened, and how to see what happened. They have to communicate the 21st century context, but do not have the balls to do it. Whose gonna lead if it costs $? That's a tough one. As media consolidates, the goal is increasingly to sell stuff, not to be the 4th estate.
The problem is that the very best, wisest, brightest and most truly morally developed human beings in America have no chance of being advanced by the press because they will be out of step with their audience. It’s not just the press – multinational corps are amoral, almost by definition, and they can’t afford agendas that counter their interests.
So leadership has to consider the press and multinationals. Remember, the data and projections say wealth is increasingly distributed towards the wealthy, and thus their access to power and media. They fund the marketing. And marketing works.
Meanwhile, we have a christianity that is increasingly powerful, rigid and ridiculous – a fairy tale as some on this board have described it, and rightly so as taught and emphasized today, wandering farther and farther from the reality upon which it is based. Meanwhile on the scientific front, there is increasing convergence of Western psychology with global wisdom traditions about what fully mature adults enjoy and do to grow to this fuller enjoyment of life.
Some media like Time & Newsweek mags almost grasp this, but are unable to lead, because those who grasp this are a tiny minority. This isn’t new age nonsense. Thomas Jefferson got it. He lead in his context. The problem is that it gets mixed-in with liberal economics where the idea is that we should support the Jerry Springer moral vision. Bullshit. All moral systems are not equivalent. In India, there is no gov’t support for all those millions in deep poverty, so they have a culture of personal responsibility and entrepreneurship that’s going to clean our fucking clock in the next 10 years in IT.
The best I can conclude about the issue of political leadership is that
1) it actually matters, and not many think this,
2) the real responsibility lies on all of us who think we can think and want to continue to grow. We have to frame the context of our times and the parameters of what morality means in these times. The question is, how honest are we in our lives? How much bullshit is in our action and speech? What if the real definition of personal responsibility is not only rationalizing the status quo, but requires real self-honesty and courage at the individual level? Do you actually have enough self respect to lead? What if it meant you had to really do your total best? Hmmmm?
My point is I refuse to be a victim. I am accountable, as are you EV, and you Zin, and you Nosc and others to live our best possible lives and to think and act so clearly to create a new consensus about how to look at the world we live in.
My apologies for the length.
