If we look back in history we can see that national leadership was almost totally the province of the privileged until modern times when leadership was often chosen based upon merit.
In the last four presidential elections Americans have chosen Clinton for two terms on the bases of merit and Bush for two terms on the bases of privilege. Two elections were won by the boy from the wrong side of the tracks who displayed amazing merit. Two elections were won by the privileged son of privilege.
I think we can usefully examine these two leaders in an attempt to recognize the dangers to our nation by both types of leadership. In the case of Bush there is little need for examination because he is the incarnation of the weakness of leadership by an aristocracy of privilege. But the weakness of meritocracy may not be so obvious.
I think the major problem inherent in meritocracy is that the arrogance of privilege has been replaced by the arrogance of merit. Clinton was problematic for the nation because it appears that those who rise to the top because of merit have developed a sense of superiority even surpassing that of the aristocracy of privilege.
Elites by merit have the illusion that their success is solely on merit and it “strengthens the likelihood that elites will exercise power irresponsibly, precisely because they recognize so few obligations to their predecessors or to the communities they profess to lead. Their lack of gratitude disqualifies meritocratic elites from the burden of leadership, and in any case, they are less interested in leadership than in escaping from the common lot—the very definition of meritocratic success.â€
Of course, we can find evidence of great leadership from both the privileged and the meritocracy. How can we recognize the disabling arrogance before we elect them rather than after?
Quotes from “The Revolt of the Elites†by Lasch.
there are some really interesting books on leadership.
One guy last name, uhhhhh, burns, I think,
James mccagor? burns. Anyway, he breaks out leadership
by several means. By merit, by moral leadership (think Gandhi)
by intellectual idea’s, (Einstein) inspirational (FDR) and somewhere
maybe here maybe not, but someone thought leaders tend to
have one common trait, that of excess energy. Napoleon is one
example of this. He was always going, sleeping only 4 hours a night,
leadership by energy. there is also leadership by example.
Those are some examples of leadership. Managements books are
full of examples.
I am loving all of your recent posts. You’re touching on topics that are very important to me.
I would love it if you would share with us just what is moving you in your recent direction. It can be here or in another thread, but what’s making you think?
I am convinced that the Matadors manipulating our citizens do so by encouraging SIN (Self Induced Narcotic). This narcotic is in the form of consumerism (bread and circus) and keeps the citizens in a state of constant intellectual stupor.
I reason that if our citizens become conscious of the things that are going on they may kick the habit and take up their social responsibilities. My job is to ride through the country side shouting “Awaken, go to your local library, you have much understanding to doâ€!
Are you aware that this desire to exact an impact on others and ‘awaken’ them is - arguably - itself a product of a capitalist, even Christian, mechanism?
Whole hearted self promotion is what you might call it on one, cynical, polar extreme.
On the other, you might call it a kind of altruistic intellectual crusade.
In each case, the impulse is to compel the attention and influence the habits of others and to bring them ‘good news’. In theory at least, you’d make an excellent Christian evangelist and an excellent microcosm of Capitalist instincts in action.
Are your desires, also, then, perhaps being prescribed by your surrounding culture? Is your impulse to act in this way another example of the ‘cultural slavery’(my euphemism) you detect around you? Be sure that it isn’t (unless you in fact want to imbue yourself in this framework)…it’s something that, I believe, bears thinking about.
I am a retired engineer with some formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.
I would like to suggest that the reader consider the desirability of developing self-learning as a hobby. One might think of this as a ‘second wind’. Like the marathoner developing a new source of energy and excitement at mid-race the self-learner undertakes a second-stage journey in life by creating a new worldview through an aroused curiosity question for a deeper understanding of reality.
Quote: “All men, like all nations, are tested twice in the moral realm: first by what they do, then by what they make of what they do. The condition of guilt, a sense of one’s own guilt, denotes a kind of second chance. Men are, as if by a kind of grace, given a chance to repay to the living that it is they find themselves owing the dead.”
“Coming to Terms with Vietnam,” by Peter Marin, Harpers, Dec. 1980.
