Leadership

Now here's a concept that seems to be lacking in political circles, especially places that rhyme with Squashington DC. Senator Joe Lieberman (probably more conservative that Nebraska's Republican senator-wink) had this to say on the floor of the Senate today:

But, leadership requires sometimes that we defy public opinion if that is what is necessary to do what is right for our country. In fact, at a time like this, we are required to do what each of us believes is right, and that might not be what is popular.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but he is, in my opinion, hitting the nail on the head. The sheep follow the shepherd's lead, not the other way 'round, lest they all wind up wandering off into something stupid or dangerous. Please don't think I'm trying to disparage the typical American voter/poll participant, although I will say that there's quite a bit to be said in that regard (education-cough) and I did find a fun website recently--please, take the test.

Point 1: It seems to be a mark of a leader that one does what is right or what one believes is right even if that means getting people on your bad side (read: losing a re-election campaign). In other words, being a leader means that people have chosen to follow you for a time, but here's the catch, twenty-two style: as soon as you begin to define yourself by that leadership, looking beyond what you believe is right to what you believe your constituency wants, you've relegated yourself to following votes, and nobody's following except you.

Point 2: While I appreciate the representative part of our republic-esque government, I think the popular part presents us with a bit of a quandary.

(Tangent: in a society best summarized by a Queen song, two minutes is too long to wait for a Hot Pocket, the guy driving 2 mph over the speed limit in the left lane is going too slow, and the average person's patience is gone before the end of this tangent or before the waitress can show up, whichever comes first, having "leaders" elected for two, four or six years doesn't jive well. If God-forbid, your opinion changes between polling day and oath of office, you're still stuck with the same elected officials until their time is up, however many unbearable years down the road that may be. Note the sarcasm.)

Popularity these days fluctuates more than Oprah's weight--*rimshot*--and the person who is popular one day might not be as popular the next day. Our impatience has gotten the best of us and we can't bear to put up with the way things are any longer, because we just don't like it, and we shouldn't have to deal with anything we don't like. (Yes, I'm still on that sarcasm thing.)

Random question--is this the byproduct of a state of education that cares more about students' feelings of self-esteem than their ability to use the chain rule to integrate sqrt(1-cos x)? dx?

Anyway, long story elongated, Lieberman's helping me to see a vital flaw in the idea of thinking of our elected officials as leaders. If we try to follow someone who is merely following us, we end up in this cycle that, to anyone on the outside looking in, must look like a dog chasing it's own tail. What we need is to be able to identify those elected officials for whom doing what is right supersedes being an elected official. And don't feed me any of that "I need to get re-elected to do more right" crap. I'm not buying it, and you shouldn't be selling it. What we need are men and women who are willing to sacrifice their careers in politics in order to do what is right. What we need are representatives and senators who are willing to be left twisting in the wind as opposed to floating whichever way it blows. What we need are leaders.