What Makes a Good Leader?

When the campaign nears the end, both candidates have generally done a pretty good job of moving to the center.  Thus, it becomes more difficult to determine what they actually stand for.  Taking a break from examining particular policy positions, let's ask:

WHAT MAKES A GOOD LEADER?

  Wouldn't it be prudent to ask ourselves this question before examining the candidates?  What are the most important qualifications for being president?  Too often our political leadership is able to make us believe our allegiance is to them and to the party, so we forget to constructively tear through the campaign rhetoric and look at the facts.  As a result, who among us feels really comfortable voting for the 'other' party?  Emotional and blind allegiance to a political party should have nothing to do with our vote. 

  It is from that vantage point we should ask: what do we value in our leaders?  Intelligence?  Faith?  Allegiance?  Wisdom?  Experience?  Patience?  Here is what I value in a leader.

GOD FEARING

John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

  What happens when the people defend their right to free speech not in order to evade government prosecution for their dissent, but in order to ensure their right to publish pornography?  What happens when a society doesn't realize that being created equal doesn't mean redefining marriage, but is intended to protect against government abuses?  And what happens when their elected leaders can't tell the difference either?  Well, what did happen when society refused to believe that ''all men are created equal'' applied to all races, not just whites?

George Washington: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

  I would be more comfortable with a man/woman who is Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or any other religion than I would be with an atheist or someone vaguely religious.  With someone who is devoutly religious (and by religious, I mean someone devoted to something larger than themselves, on the very most general of terms), you know where they are coming from and what they value.  With an atheist or someone who is 'sort-of' religious, who knows what you're getting.  Does the atheist value human life?  Why would they, to them humans are just glorified pond scum.  Where do your rights come from, who provides for them?  The true atheist would be completely unreliable, a constant variable you couldn't trust to react the same way twice.  The religious pretender is almost even worse, because they are essentially lying to you about what they believe.  I would much prefer someone devout, even if they are of a differing religion.

Again, John Adams: "Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases."  

  It is profoundly important for the person who resides in the presidency to be a person of great moral character.  A very large part of that is their religious beliefs. Argue about their religion, but the person who is honestly religious is the only person you can trust at their word.   Those people protect your rights not because government gives them to you, but because God does.

VALUES

  "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."  Jesus Christ said that.  The natural follow up question would be what do the candidates value?  Life?  Liberty?  Or just the Pursuit of Happiness?  What does how they act and who they socialize with tell us about them?  If we can decide what a candidate values, we know who they really are.  Then we can get a better idea of how they will react as president.  It is one thing to say what you'll do on the campaign train; it is quite another to follow through when you have the job.  Most people presented with an ethical dilemma default on the side of what they value most, so it is important to know what the candidate truly values.  In order to know this we need to know a lot about them.  What company do they keep?  What do they say when they think no one is listening?  If we are honest with ourselves we will acknowledge that this is the most difficult thing to discern about a candidate.

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY

  Are we electing a libertarian?  A communist?  A socialist?  Someone who loves freedom above all else?  Someone who values a small/large government?  A powerful military?  It is important to not only know their positions on issues, but know how the implementation of those positions will impact the way the government functions.  At its core, that is their philosophy on government.

It isn't just the promises a candidate makes, it is how they will deliver on those promises.  

Let's take prosperity as an example and examine different philosophies on how to spread it.  For instance, lowering your taxes.  

  The Conservative will tell you that the government should tax you less, let you keep your own money, and invest it where you like.  Thus, through hard work and getting the government out of your way by keeping it small, you can achieve whatever dreams you want in a free society.  Ultimately, the limit is only what you chose to achieve.  It isn't without its drawbacks, as Winston Churchill noted, "the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

  The Socialist, however, will tell you that the rich are holding you down, and it is unfair that they possess so much.  As such, we should tax them more than you and redistribute that wealth to those less fortunate.   They will tell you the government is your salvation, and you just need to give it more power and money so it can solve all your problems.  You don't need to earn prosperity, the government will provide it for you.

  Both candidates are promising the same thing (lower taxes), but are motivated by very different agendas.  Followed through to their logical conclusion, both leaders would want to fashion vastly different governments.  We should have some interest in the 'end' our candidates want to achieve.

EXPERIENCE

  Experience is the most overrated qualification, really only important in specific circumstances.  What I mean is if you're trying to solve an economic crisis, it might be nice if you could demonstrate that you had solved one in the past.  If you're trying to win a war, it'd be nice to be able to demonstrate some accuracy on past military conflicts.  That is specific experience.  General experience just means you're older or have been in the political machine longer, and really of what value is that?  

  George Washington, when appointed General of the Continental Army for the Revolutionary War, stopped by a local book store on his way to take up his new post.  He bought books on how to lead an army.  He didn't have any experience up to that point, but he was successful because he was motivated by what he valued.  In his case, primarily freedom from British oppression.

Abraham Lincoln had political experience in line with what Governor Palin or Senator Obama has.  He wasn't a good leader in a time of war because he was in the Senate for 95 years, but because he followed through on what he valued: a united country.  When he freed the slaves, he did so because he thought it was morally wrong, saying "Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral...evil."  What a candidate values is what they are going to try an implement when they get the presidency, so we need to be seriously examining our candidates.

SENATOR OBAMA

  There are things that worry me about McCain, but in the interest of space I just want to examine Obama here based on the above points.

  God Fearing: I honestly don't know where he stands on this one.  He has said he is a Christian, and I'll take his word on that.  However, I haven't heard him come out and say anything about how his views would affect how he would lead, especially nothing so definitive as to what Washington said.  It would seem he is sort of quasi-religious, which I don't find appealing in any candidate.  For when does someone who is quasi-devoted find it acceptable to violate their beliefs?  

  Values:  As I said above, this one is more tricky.  We really have to know the person to know what they value, and there is little the media focuses on that help us get to know them.  Instead, we have to dig it up on our own. From what I do know, Senator Obama's values worry me much more than McCain's.  The people around him now and those in his past don't seem to be the type I would expect in a leader I'd like.  He has a 'spiritual mentor' (his words) who blames whites for everything and preaches that the government created the AIDS virus to kill black people.  His pastor of 20 years also believes that September 11th was justifiable, and that we had it coming.  He has a 'close friend' (his words) in a man named Ayers who has bombed the U.S. Congress and N.Y. Police department, and has said as recently as Sept. 11, 2001 (bad timing) that he wished he did more.  Then there is the man he has spoken well of claiming that Obama is the Messiah (Louis Farrakhan).  His wife has said she hasn't ever been proud of this country.  And when Obama thought no one was listening, he told a group in San Francisco that small town Americans are "bitter, clinging to their guns and their God with antipathy towards those who aren't like them."  If we are being fair, we'll look at the friends we keep, and ask ourselves if we know one person who has bombed a building, or who thinks September 11th was anything but evil.  Have we known anyone who believes that white people created AIDS to kill blacks?  And if we did know these types of people, would we listen to such garbage for over 20 years and call the person saying those things a 'spiritual mentor.'  If that is what you're being mentored to be, what are you becoming?  Would we have that man baptize our kids?  Would we have him officiate our wedding, one of the most important days of our lives?  If you're a Christian, would that person be the one who finally showed you how Christ loves you and died for you?  Would we chose to launch our careers out of the home of an American terrorist?  If we are a politician, could we marry someone who has never been proud of our country?  Would we find that attractive in a potential mate?  If we wouldn't do those things and keep those friends, and Obama has, I think it is fair to ask what his values truly are.  We all can understand one person in our past turning out to be a real tool, but what would it say about us if the same type of people kept popping up time and time again?

  "Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are."  What do his acquaintances tell us about the man?  I'm not sure, but it certainly isn't anything positive.

Governmental Theory:  As a Conservative, Senator Obama worries me.  

He has said he intends to tax the rich and give it to the poor.  He wants to raise taxes on the rich only, while the     lower 40% of us pay no taxes to begin with.  

He supports legislation that would take State's rights away in regards to abortion and marriage, providing more power to the federal government.  

He has requested, in his four years in the Senate, over $800 million in pork projects, and promises over $700 Billion more worth in new programs. Is he conveniently ignoring how one would pay for that while currently running a $450 Billion deficit.  

He has said that paying taxes equates to being a 'good neighbor' and his running mate said it is 'patriotic,'  but I don't agree we owe the government anything, I think the government owes us.  "Government for the people, by the people."

He supported legislation to prosecute a home owner for shooting an intruder.

He looks to the government to solve the financial crises, welfare, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, natural disasters and the like through larger federal problems.  

He wants to tax us in the U.S. to the tune of $80 Billion, and give it to poor countries throughout the world.   Sounds good, but again he thinks government will solve the poverty problem when only freeing those people and letting them create jobs will get them out of poverty.  At the end of the day, even $80 Billion will eventually run out.

He doesn't ever say that the government should be smaller, and only when McCain said he wants to cut pork projects did Obama say the same.    

  Those are stands he has taken that indicate what his theory on government is.  Those beliefs have long standing and serious consequences on the way our government works.  Every president wants to spread their ideology, and Senator Obama will spread his by appointing judges and working with a Democrat controlled House and Senate.  

  Electing Senator Obama does mean change, because we were founded with the intent of small government.  The real question is do we like the change he promises?  If after knowing all we do about Senator Obama you still support him that is fine.  Just know that what you're supporting isn't what our Founders fought for.  It isn't free enterprise.  It isn't small government.  It is the beginnings of socialism, pure and simple.  No major party candidate has espoused redistribution of wealth without failing miserably in the end.  Could this time be different?  Have we as a society really become this liberal?  Is this why John Adams said "Remember, democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."?

CONCLUSION

  The things I chose as being important in a candidate might not be the same that you list.  I don't know how religious Senator Obama is, or how far he is willing to compromise those beliefs.  I do not like what his acquaintances say about his character.  And I do not like his theory on government.  To me, those are the three most important things about a potential leader, and Senator Obama doesn't meet any of them.

  I also realize that McCain isn't exactly the pillar of conservatism I would prefer, but how far left or right are we willing to take this country before we say enough is enough?  We have in Senator Obama the most liberal major party candidate in the history of this country.  Most of his policies, while well-meaning, would mean implementing a government that would be totally foreign to our Founders.  

So three questions await:

Are we willing to elect someone who is vague about his religious beliefs, whatever they may be?

Are we willing to elect someone who, if like those friends he keeps, has such radical values?

Are we willing to change from a system of government and trade that has produced the most prosperous nation in the history of the planet to a system that has demonstrably failed every time it has been attempted?