Every day of my life, I find myself struggling to understand why people want George W. Bush to be their leader.
In order to get to the bottom of this, I spend a great deal of time talking to and debating issues with folks who adore him. But instead of building a greater understanding of the man's appeal, I'm usually left with a hallow, empty feeling in my stomach, the result of nearly every debate or discussion ending with somebody telling me that there's something "wrong with my values" and that I just "don't get it."
My personal values aside (perhaps a discussion for a future diary), as a small business owner there is something I DO get: effective administration is the result of quality leadership and quality management. It's not about whether or not people like you, it's about whether or not they respect you. I do not respect George W. Bush, and here's why:
He needs to be both an effective leader and an effective manager, but he is neither.
A leader, simply, inspires others to follow. The problem with George W. Bush is that, for the most part, the people who follow him would continue to follow him even if he decided to launch a thermo-nuclear device at the moon. Even my most strident Bush-adoring friends admit one thing: the man is unconcerned with trying to inspire the folks who disagree with him. It's easy to masturbate your base. Real Presidential leadership means earning the respect of the people who didn't vote for you. After winning in 2004, the man declared that he would do as much. But he hasn't. And you can't spin-doctor it. If I don't think he's working hard to earn his respect... then he isn't, period.
Because George W. Bush is doing nothing to earn my respect, I cannot respect him.
A manager creates and maintains systems in order to produce productive results. The cardinal rule here is: make good decisions based on accurate information. The problem with George W. Bush is that he rarely does this. Instead what we get, time after time, are bad decisions based on ideological goals and justified by clever political spin. Based on George W. Bush's track record here, I wouldn't want him running my business, so why in the hell do I want him running my country? Democrat or Republican, our leaders-as-managers must be held accountable for their decisions (or lack there of). The political spin has been woven so thick around this President, that accountability has become nothing more than a word defined differently by people who don't like each other.
Because George W. Bush seems incapable of making good decisions based on accurate information, preferring to obfuscate for political gain instead of manage for collective gain, I cannot respect him.
In sum, here's the difference between me and my pals on the other side: for me, accountability must be determined on a case-by-case basis, regardless of political stance; for my pals on the other side: accountability means being loyal to George W. Bush, regardless of context. In this way, the folks who admire him so much obliterate the line between "respect" and "like," rendering accountability a political device instead of a value.
Because I believe that accountability is a value, I cannot respect George W. Bush.
So to all the folks out there hell-bent on telling me there's something wrong with my values for not supporting George W. Bush, I say this: if elevating ideological loyalty above effective leadership and management and putting likeability above accountability (or drawing no distinction between the two) are your values... then it is YOU, my friend, who simply doesn't "get it." And in so doing, you have betrayed the spirit of '76.