Is it Acceptable?
By: Stephen Sachs
Of course mediocre leadership is not acceptable. It has been noted that lately writers are quite critical towards our new President, George W. Bush. They are taking pot shots at Bush, calling him less than intelligent, and without much quantification. To some extent, it is true that Mr. Bush is taking the brunt of a great amount of criticism from a liberal media. In fact, I have read one supporter of Bush (well more a criticizer of the media) who claims that Mr. Bush is actually intelligent. He graduated from Harvard Business School, and was a fighter pilot. He moreover, was a two-term governor before becoming President. Well folks, as you can probably tell, this writer is not of the opinion that Mr. Bush is an acceptable leader, intelligent in any way, and is more emblematic of a larger societal problem, the fact we no longer have any good leaders.
First of all, the quantification that Mr. Bush is intelligent centers around his graduation of Harvard Business School. Mr. Bush might be a qualified man, smart enough to know where his allegiances should go (something they teach you in business school or in reading Machiavelli's "The Prince"), however, he is not intelligent. Harvard, for all its regalia and brand-name recognition does not always graduate this nation's most intelligent people. I, for one, do not attend Harvard. I bet that Harvard does not mind putting on its alumni list the prestigious George W. Bush Jr., descendent of a good family, a politically connected father (who before becoming Vice-President was well connected enough to head the CIA), not to mention that he was a Yale grad- reason enough to try and grab this young man because of the fact he can donate to Harvard instead of those Bulldog's down I 95 in Connecticut. Ironically, Harvard might have thought it prudent to be attracted to George W. as much as we are attracted to Harvard's own name.
Moreover, business school itself does not denote a person's worthiness for the Presidency. If our Founding Fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, realized that a business school graduate is president, they would certainly be very scared. Remember in elementary school when we all learned that Benjamin Franklin sold his newspaper because a businessman had to give up their work so they could be in government? Enough said. Actually, if my memory serves correct, most presidents (and politicians), if they are anything, are liars (lawyers). At least their training beyond undergraduate school is not an MBA. So why does an MBA qualify a man for the Presidency or even the fact he is intelligent?
There is no disputing that Mr. Bush did not utilize his advantages. He had the right name, accent, disposition, friends, and captured power. He can project a "way" about him that attracts half the United States, and prudently brought himself into a position whereby he can sit behind the same desk his father did eight years ago. I am going to argue that Bush was smart enough to have the right people with him, to take the hand dealt him and to not "rock too many boats." However, I will not concede intelligence to a man who truly does not show the public intelligence. Intelligence in a leader is different than intelligence in a mechanic, than in a police detective, or than in a football player. It is something else, something more vital, something that the most powerful man in the world has to embody. Bush is no longer a regular politician, playing back room politics in Austin, Texas. He is President of the most powerful nation in the world. He sits where John Kennedy guided America through the Cuban Missile Crisis, where Franklin Roosevelt guided America through a depression and world war, where Abraham Lincoln fought America itself, emerging victorious, and where Woodrow Wilson forged an international order that should have endured many years. Not only were these men leaders, they were larger than life. Think of the inspiration Theodore Roosevelt brought to a whole generation of Americans. Think of the intelligence of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or John Adams who all occupied this office. There is something surreal to be a President of the United States. There is a leadership quality needed to be President of the United States.
Today it is true we no longer have "great figures." It is more whether you can stay on top long enough to not fall from power. I would even argue that it is no longer to pursue a position, but to secure one. Politicians and more important, Presidents, are now on the defensive more than offensive. Too often, critical eyes (present company included) are upon them, and those with true vision turn away from this office for more private and less scrutinized occupations where their energy can be channeled more effectively. In their wake is a void. Filling this void are persons who primarily lack the integrity or inspirational quality we have come to expect from those mythical creatures of the past. The word superfluous comes to mind in describing this new breed. They would rather secure and preserve their position long enough to exploit their power for all it is worth. There is no vision, no want to bring citizens to a new plateau. Those quality figures are no longer to be found.
Whether this lack of vision results from Watergate, and the fact it was such a watershed in exposing the deficiencies of American politics or whether it is just resultant of our modern satirical nature is yet to be solved. The fact remains however that we are without any quality leaders. Mr. Bush will endure his criticism because he is as mediocre as the rest. Both candidates last Fall were pathetic to say the least, and now we are stuck in a low point of American politics. No wonder less than 50% of the people come out to vote. For this writer, no excuses can be found for Mr. Bush's lack of leadership ability, no sympathy can be given to him- we are ready for a real leader, and you Mr. Bush are merely a temporary fill.
