Much of the world is moving forward towards a renewable, sustainable future. The USA may be left behind due to a lack of strong political leadership, and the capture of the USA’s business culture by corporate greed. Fortunately, this is not true in every country, or even in every city, town, and county in the USA.
There are several positive currents, both internationally and nationally. One of the most positive developments internationally is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The changes flowing from the GRI should not be underestimated. For more information, either google GRI, or go to its website http://www.globalreporting.org/Home The premise of the GRI is similar to the premise of the Public Policy Institute – countries, corporations, and politicians behave differently when someone is watching. What the GRI has done is ensure that corporations commit to being “watched”. As a result, there is positive feedback and increased profitability when the GRI involved companies plan for a future in which they remain profitable because the societies where they are located benefit from long term corporate planning that leads to thriving societies with cleaner water, lower health costs as diseases are reduced, and a more productive workforce.
I realize the GRI initiative is not well known in the USA, nor are most companies located here committed to remaining, or committed to the well-being of the cities and towns where they are located. This may be due to the focus of business education at Harvard and elsewhere on maximizing immediate share holder profits, rather than the long term well being of businesses, communities, corporations, and workers. The focus on short term profits is misguided, and has led to oursourcing, sale of entire industries overseas, and a diminished likelihood of well being in the USA. Like with Community Supported Agriculture, maybe there needs to be Community Supported Manufacture – pay a few more bucks for good quality, jobs for your community, and known materials and environmental controls.
Leadership requires taking responsibility, and being the source of ideas, not a conciliatory caretaker, as it appears to me President Obama has largely been. The vigor on the campaign trial about closing Guantanamo, supporting America’s manufacturing, and jobs has largely dissipated and been replaced by a President who seems mired in triage rather than fighting for you and I – and a positive vision and plan for the future.
Clearly, there have been other presidents with equal or greater challenges to face. To name two: Lincoln and FDR. Both Lincoln and FDR had clear agendas and visions that they lobbied directly to the American people, whether through letters published nationwide, as Lincoln did, or “fireside chats” as FDR did. Neither allowed the toxic agendas of their times, whether Copperheads or Banksters to take over the dialog.
Maybe President Obama has a vision for our future, and a concrete plan he is fighting for. If so, I remain unclear what that vision and plan may be – just opposing the Tea Party is not enough. Where is the clear agenda and vision?
As to the chorus of second-class intellects and narcissistic wannabes currently in the Presidential race – none of them have displayed either a clear vision or a concrete agenda, or the combination of integrity and true grit (as it were) that Lincoln and FDR had in abundance.
I am hopeful that there ARE strong leaders in the “Farm Team” with courage, vision, intellect and the necessary toughness to prevent a Troll Chorus from capturing the public dialogue.
Here is my challenge: If you are aware of a strong, visionary, take charge, confident leader with integrity in the Farm Team, that you know personally – tell us about them. Your picks should have a track record of taking responsibility rather than looking for someone else to blame, fighting for honest, open, responsive, dare I say small “d” democratic governance whether in the private or public sectors.
And if you continue to belive that President Obama has these characteristics, please do tell me why.
“As to the chorus of second-class intellects and narcissistic wannabes currently in the Presidential race – none of them have displayed either a clear vision or a concrete agenda, or the combination of integrity and true grit (as it were) that Lincoln and FDR had in abundance.”
I think Michelle Bachmann actually has that. It’s basically a Christian version of Turkey — vaguely theocratic with a foreign policy driven by hurt feelings and personal feelings, swift restrictions on free speech (you’re better off as a journalist in China than Turkey right now) and an unequal economy with fuzzy rule of law. I don’t like that vision, but I think Bachmann and Perry have it.
As for Obama, I think his vision is survival. Which is understandable given the almost treasonous behavior of half the legislature, but insufficient for the times.
Visions don’t have to be good visions.
Biden was nominated as a rightward influence to calm the establishment on the wars. On the economy he’s just a regular card-carrying loudmouth. At the very least I would find a VP who has some business experience… the best you’re going to get out of the Dems is probably somebody who has been on a lot of boards.
This is what has been largely missing from the Obama presidency. We all know he can deliver a great speech, so why does he not use that skill more often? When he spoke the other night he called on Americans explicitly to contact their members of Congress and I wondered, “Is he finally getting it?” Especially when polls indicate the American people are already on his side on the specifics he should be out there saying, for example, “Call Congress to vote for public option on health care; call Congress to vote to roll back Bush tax cuts for the rich; etc.” He’s clearly good at campaigning so he should constantly and strategically campaign in states and districts represented by those not yet with him. He also has all of OFA at his disposal to send out messages to get us to call or sign electronic petitions to Congress. It’s one thing to be “No Drama Obama” when it comes to internal campaign and WH operations, but when it comes to policy debates he should create a little drama and not seem so afraid to make people who already hate him anyway mad at him.
You are confusing outcomes (that you don’t like) with process (that you say you like) by conflating Obamas characteristics with our present situation. …
Here’s what I know about Obama: Several times, whether it was with Eric Cantor, Samuel Alito or John Boehner, he’s stood up and called them out, publicly and in pretty much exactly the manner you describe you want; He has always provided thoughtful, detailed and articulate reasons for his actions, and he has done this consistently; we might disagree with those actions, but we cannot say they are arbitrary or capricious…. We had a similar debate about a local fella by the name of Deval Patrick a few years back… Lotsa folks around here felt that a liberal apocalypse was nigh when he came out in favor of casinos… Well, once heads cooled we got Deval again, without, so far, casinos. I recall saying then, as I repeat now, that I never believed that either Obama or Patrick were the messiah, so whatever disappointment and frustration I’ve felt hasn’t fallen from so great a height of expectation.
His calling out of others you mention is too few and far between it seems. I really do get that especially with divided government we’re not going to get everything we want. However, I’d feel a lot better about it if I didn’t consistently get the feeling that the President STARTS at the compromise position and relents even on that sometimes at the first sign of opposition.