1. IrvingSnodgrass - April 14, 1999 - 7:42 PM PT
What makes a good political leader? Who are some examples? Are Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic good leaders, as was mentioned in the Suggestions thread? What about Bill Clinton? (I'm sure opinion will be, ah, divided on *that* one.)
2. incognito - April 14, 1999 - 8:02 PM PT
Honesty but within reason. "Tell the truth, but don't always be tellin' it" I had a friend say once. A leader whose word is crap isn't a good leader.
Inspires loyalty. That too. But without integrity there will be no loyalty. As a leader if you can get your followers to love you they will do anything for you. But if you lead on the basis of fear they will find the first opportunity to stab you in the back.
3. incognito - April 14, 1999 - 8:06 PM PT
Clinton is an excellent politician but not a good leader. He strikes me as a man with no solid convictions. He believes what the opinions polls tell him he should believe. Is that a good leader or a good follower?
4. Fraaank9 - April 15, 1999 - 1:28 AM PT
Chutzpah,along with a bevy of attractive,young interns.
5. Philistine - April 15, 1999 - 6:24 AM PT
A memorable text, appropriate melody, and well-played piano accompaniment.
And you misspelled "lieder."
6. RosettaStone - April 15, 1999 - 6:56 AM PT
So, this is the thread that we get, rather than one on China and the Democratic Spy Scandal?
Typical!
More and more I like Table Talk because there the readers get to pick the thread topics.
7. cllrdr - April 15, 1999 - 7:49 AM PT
"China and the Democatic Spy Scandal"? What's this, a new "Terry and the Pirates" spin-off?
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!
Happy darling?
8. cllrdr - April 15, 1999 - 7:50 AM PT
Leaders hold no interest for me. Only followers.
9. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 7:59 AM PT
Cellar:
Post #7 constitutes spam. Why do you do this?
10. JadeGold - April 15, 1999 - 8:02 AM PT
Yeah, cllrdr. Why do you do this?
Posting the same words over and over again in sequence could provoke seizures in some.
11. cllrdr - April 15, 1999 - 8:11 AM PT
sorry
(Jeez!)
12. incognito - April 15, 1999 - 8:26 AM PT
I'll learn never to be one of the first in a new thread to post something serious!
13. MsIvoryTower - April 15, 1999 - 2:55 PM PT
Okay, either this thread gets serious or it should be canned.
Here's what I look for in a political leader (not necessarily in order of importance right now as I begin this discussion):
- clear vision about what the individual believes
- ability to communicate that vision
- ability to create consensus
- ability to work with others toward compromise and collaboration
- principled behavior in any relevant experience presented as a rationale for voting for this person
- respect for and appreciation of the competing interests of other countries and cultures as they seek to influence US policies
- some idea of ethical standards and behavior that act as thresholds not to be crossed
- some degree of remoteness (I do not want to see my leaders on the cover of GQ or Playboy).
To be developed further.....
14. ChristiPeters - April 15, 1999 - 3:20 PM PT
MsIt -
Sounds good so far. How about a good leader being someone who can get those around him/her to do their best.
Hmmmmm....
I'm not sure I'm expressing myself well here.
Have you ever known someone who gets those working with/for him/her to somehow do better than they can either on their own or working for someone else?
It's more subtle than the leader inspiring them to great effort. It is more like for some reason everything just 'clicks' when this person is around. You can't quite put your finger on it, but they always seem to be where they are needed or say just the right thing.
15. incognito - April 15, 1999 - 4:42 PM PT
motivational leadership
16. ranheim - April 16, 1999 - 5:06 AM PT
Do current events have more to do with the quality of "leadership" than the person?
e.g. the 1920s were fairly good years for the USA. What are the current reputations of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover? So were the 1950s : what is Eisenhower's reputation as president (not as a general) in the eyes of the so-called elite?
FDR, JFK, and LBJ are usually the benficiaries of 'good press'. Because their names lead easily to initials? All three were horrible men.
As in sports, I feel that leadership should not be noticed. While watching a sporting event, should one never complain about the officials, it is likely that they are doing an excellent job. But, only "activists" seem to attract the eye of current medea personnel. And activists have an agenda. And 'that' is usually bad for the remainder of us.
17. rustlerpike - April 16, 1999 - 5:20 AM PT
A good leader: lives in Indonesia, has a ponytail, uses pseudonym.
18. Jenerator - April 16, 1999 - 2:19 PM PT
Tony Robbins for President!
19. joezan - April 17, 1999 - 4:21 AM PT
Ms:
"- some degree of remoteness (I do not want to see my leaders on the cover of GQ or Playboy)."
...or, for that matter, to answer questions from teenagers about what kind of underwear he/she prefers.
Liked your list, btw.
20. cllrdr - April 17, 1999 - 11:15 AM PT
Only to discover that he *really* preferred a thong!
21. CalGal - April 17, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
The Ms' list is something I quite often use to select friends (even the remote part, oddly enough) but I consider all of them pretty much "nice to haves" in a leader.
If we look at all the great leaders throughout time, I think the only one of the Ms' attributes that can come in handy is "ability to create consensus". And even that is overrated--there are examples of leaders who accomplish a great deal by refusing to compromise.
If a good leader has the qualities on the Ms' list, then he is a great guy to boot--but they are largely irrelevant to whether or not he is a good leader.
22. CalGal - April 17, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
The Ms mentions the ability to communicate vision.
Great communication skills almost always exist in leaders whose ability to govern depends on the good will of the people. It isn't so much what is communicated--the leader's vision, the leader's persuasion, singing the song the public wants to hear--as it is the passion behind it and the appearance that the leader *really believes what he says*.
It's just that not all leaders require the good will of the people.
One attribute the Ms misses that *is* required, I think, is that the leader have an excellent working knowledge of the people's psyche--what their weak spots are, how to manipulate them, when to talk tough, when they've been pushed far enough, and so on.
I think even those leaders who are driven purely by passion have this capability, even if they don't consciously use it.
23. DocBrown - April 20, 1999 - 7:42 AM PT
A political leader needs only on quality: good communication skills.
All political structures, from a small club to a political party to an entire nation, make decisions based on the interactions of its members within its structure. The shape of the structures and the roles of the members may be different, but the basic function must always be the same. The structure makes its decisions based on internal communications between members, much the way a brain makes its decisions.
So the most important skills . . . the *only* important skills . . . for any leader are communication skills.
Honesty is unimportant. Intelligence counts for nothing. Integrity is useless. Experience is a big zero. (Actually all of these count for something, but only as far as they contribute to good communications skills).
Communication is everything.
24. incognito - April 20, 1999 - 9:37 AM PT
I don't know I've heard some awfully good communicators communicate some awfully stupid things. It sounds like you are divorcing the content of the communication from the communication itself.
25. CalGal - April 20, 1999 - 10:05 AM PT
Well, I think if you combine Doc's communication skills attribute--which I mentioned as necessary in any leader who needs the good will of the people--with my attribute of knowing how to manipulate people and you've got the necessary prerequisites.
Also, I think most leaders have to have the desire to lead? Not sure. Throwing it out for consideration.
26. davidtudor - April 20, 1999 - 11:00 AM PT
To me, the one common attribute virtually all leaders have is the desire to attain and use power. The great leaders have the desire and the ability to use power wisely and in efforts to improve their given domain. All else (wisdom, etc.) fails if the leader doesn't know how to hold on to, increase, and then use the power(s) available to him or her.
There aren't many great leaders, of course.
27. PincherMartin - April 21, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT 29. PincherMartin - April 21, 1999 - 11:28 AM PT 30. CalGal - April 21, 1999 - 11:30 AM PT 31. PincherMartin - April 21, 1999 - 11:32 AM PT 32. uzmakk - April 23, 1999 - 9:51 AM PT 33. uzmakk - April 23, 1999 - 9:53 AM PT
Well, this thread hasn't moved very far, and I think that one of the reasons may be that it is difficult to articulate what a good leader is. I have read many explanations here: ability to create consensus, clear vision, ability to communicate, remoteness, high ethical standards, inspiring or motivational leadership, or just a guy with a "good press". Tudor ends up with the best explanation to define any leader -- "the desire to attain and use power".
None of the explanations work for me with the exception of Tudor's, and his is still bad at predicting why someone will be a great leader instead of just an average or poor leader. To show how difficult this is, lets take three political leaders from a similiar time and culture (comparing across cultures and long periods of time can be tricky) who are thought to be, if not great, then at least good ones: FDR, Truman, Eisenhower. Let's compare their general qualities:
FDR --
Intelligence: Above Average
Ability to Create Consensus: Great, but not mind-boggling so.
Clear Vision: Absolutely not.
Ability to communicate: Superb
Remoteness: No
High Ethical Standards: Hah!
Inspiring or Inspirational Leadership: Outstanding
Good Press: Yes
Truman --
Intelligence: Above Average
Ability to Create Consensus: No
Clear Vision: Yes
Ability to communicate: Better than average with the voter
Remoteness: No
High Ethical Standards: Yes, among the best.
Inspiring or Inspirational Leadership: So-so, although his give em hell style attracts some, he clearly was not the mst inspiring leader.
Good Press: No
Eisenhower --
Intelligence: Above Average
Ability to Create Consensus: Yes
Clear Vision: Yes
Ability to communicate: No
Remoteness: Yes, but in the same way your Grandfather is remote
High Ethical Standards: Very questionable insome areas
Inspiring or Inspirational Leadership: No
Good Press: No
Currently, all three of these men are considered to be among the ten best Presidents that America has produced and yet there is so little commonality among them. Great leaders are like great writers -- they are great in their own ineffable way that cannot be bottled and passed on in either a Stephan Covey book or a Strunk and White writing guide.
Perhaps the only commonality the three men have is that they are smart, but not too smart as if both extremes are detrimental to good leadership
Actually, I didn't define what makes a good leader, but rather which of the Ms' attributes I disagreed with, since they clearly are not required.
The point being that a leader does not have to be a good guy, a nice guy, an ethical guy (and of course, a leader doesn't even have to be a guy). A leader can be an utterly lethal son of a bitch.
And since the leader won't be around when judged by history, the only thing that really matters is the leader's results in the moment. By that standard, Hussein, Milosevic, and Clinton are doing quite well. A scary thought.
and remember, I am just comparing American political leaders from the mid-century. Imagine the difficulty of comparing across cultures (did Genghis Khan need to create a consensus in the same way that we think of the phrase today? Did Sitting Bull need a Good Press?), wide expanses of time, and different areas or occupations (what about good religious leaders and good business leaders?).
Troublesome that this thread died without being born.
My god, look at the next slate that the Demopublicans are putting forth.