Politics is great! Its an excellent opportunity to for people to "battle it out" and show all their bravado for the self interest of onlookers (We kind of look for that anger and conflict when choosing leaders. Yell louder and people clap more!). The problem is that when we seem to be missing the big picture all of that fighting starts looking less than helpful. We stop arguing about ways to solve problems and start arguing over who is better than who, who's opinions are better, or who's party can influence more people.
As we digress into pitched small time battles we often find ourselves becoming bested by other nations. There is one thing the Chinese are right about and that is democracy takes a level of consensus. Where debate is helpful, the chronic bickering and pitched battles will likely be our undoing. We have to maintain focus on national interests.
How do we change that?
We need leaders who are not ideologically jaded and focused only on their party, their careers, and helping their friends. They must be focused on the bigger picture or they cease to be leaders of much value. Sure they may fight and damage each other but not fight for everyone's (the nation's) interest. Leadership is about moving people to achieve lofty goals that help all of us.
We as a people have become accustomed to looking at our leaders as people who have all the answers. As a social class they may have become accustomed to the belief they are inherently more qualified to lead than others. Thus opinions aren't really challenged within their own parties but are more discussions of party navigation. Then all the arguments seem to lose their rationality and get silly (We accept that silliness. Think about it. If you had a business would you really want some of these people running it? Putting forward unsubstantiated claims and chronic arguing.).
Let us step outside of that dynamic back to a time where we might have had 100 people in a democratic village. Perhaps if someone was born with more oxen or sheep then others they may have more chances of survival (food, marriage, health, etc...) but when difficult times hit certainly people would not go to someone who didn't have the skills just because they had more oxen or sheep.
For example, if a community needed more food they would go to the best farmer and if they needed to fight against a warring tribe they would go to those with experience fighting. If they hoped to be successful they pushed their best and brightest to higher positions and they would always be on the look out for new skills and people to enhance the chances of their village (i.e. value directed diversity around shared goals).
We are removed from that now and perhaps will be even more removed. While those very same processes work in the background we are no longer connected so closely to our choices or know the people who are professing to be our leaders. Thus sometimes the necessity of leading through knowledge and skill takes a back seat through leading by class and social connections.
Democracy isn't built on that.....we should think about leadership and drawing in the diverse talent we need to compete. There will be many within the "connected class" that would disagree but that is more likely because they want the steak, potatoes, and the cake; some are left with crumbs. I think there is a better way and that way is through fostering evidence based management, compromise (bi partisanship) and refocusing our national efforts to build a great nation (I know! I know! Its a dumb idea. 🤷)
No comments:
Post a Comment