How about both? A one-term president leading that revolution
Yesterday, I blogged about the concept of a “one term president” who actually ran for the office with no desire whatsoever of serving two terms. But rather, running with the platform of hitting the ground running on Day One — using the biggest pulpit in the world to promote positive change for all humankind, for our precious planet and for all of her creatures. (See link to yesterday’s blog below)
To me, this concept would not be in lieu of, but would work in concert with the grassroots revolution that I have mentioned often. We all know that within our system of checks and balances that the American president, while holding the world’s most powerful office, has very little real power to make any sweeping changes. But he does have the world’s ear and has unlimited access to every leader in the free world, which hopefully later today will include Libya. He also has access to “big picture” information generated by some of the brightest minds in the world.
With all of that information, relationships, and an unlimited international stage — coupled with exceptional leadership skills; a results-oriented American president could accomplish a great deal in four years. Not by forcing change through the tedious congressional process but by inspiring the general population of the United States of America.
In other words, that president could give our grassroots revolution the biggest shot in the arm possible. And we’d be able to take it from there; but that presidential leadership during the early stages could possibly shave decades off the entire process.
As it stands today in American politics, the focus from the get-go is to serve two terms as president and for every senator or member of the House to serve as many terms as possible. An incredible amount of time, energy and money is wasted as the entire process is driven by the “great dead weight of public opinion.” (a phrase I borrowed from Donald Watson — yesterday’s blog). The result is that virtually everything we do seems to be sub-optimized — our health care dilemma is the most urgent example of this process. We seem to always reach solutions with which almost no one is truly happy.
We interrupt this blog to report: The CNN Special “The Last Heart Attack” was re-scheduled due to breaking news in Libya last night. Now airing on Saturday, August 27 at 8 p.m. ET
Back to leadership; yesterday I consulted a good friend who is also someone that I respect as a great leader. I asked him to take a look at my blog and let me know what he thought. His response:
Nice post!! I believe our democracy is proving to be very expensive as true leaders don’t want to get involved…….
To be sure, our system doesn’t seem to appeal to the great leaders — only to the great managers. And there’s a huge difference between the two. Having spent most of my 40-year career in the world of business, I have worked for both managers and leaders, but had a lot more fun when I was working for the latter.
No question the world needs both; but the world will be much better served if most of the managers are reporting to the leaders — instead of basing every decision on the great dead weight of public opinion.
So what’s the difference between managers and leaders? Drawing from my own experience and searching the internet for the wisdom of others, today, I have compiled my top ten list that best describes what leadership means to me:
- Managers concentrate on strategy — Leaders nurture culture
- Managers wield authority — Leaders apply influence
- Managers consider dangers — Leaders seek opportunity
- Managers seek markets — Leaders serve people
- Managers control people — Leaders empower people
- Managers employ consistency — Leaders elicit creativity
- Managers see complexity — Leaders see simplicity
- Managers refine — Leaders revolutionize
- Managers are skeptical — Leaders are optimistic
- Managers perform duties — Leaders pursue dreams
Yesterday, I asked the question: “What if someone like Ted Turner became inspired to serve as President of the United States for one term only?”
Whoever it is, we need someone with exceptional leadership skills, a reputation for getting things done, solid international recognition, a genuine concern for the environment and enough money to convince the world that he wasn’t doing this for personal gain. Maybe there are others who are better qualified — but Ted was just the first one that came to mind.
A final thought. Not once in this entire blog have I mentioned the process of humankind returning to the natural diet for our species. But since I feel that it is inevitable for many reasons, I have no doubt that if we truly “lead and nourish” the process that it will be much less traumatic for all concerned. I have also heard from a few friends that Mr. Turner may be receptive to hearing our message regarding this inevitable change. And if he chooses to help lead this process; he could make a tremendous difference even if he never came near the office of president.
For the record, there are four compelling reasons why our typical Western diet is simply unsustainable for much longer: too many people, not enough land, not enough energy, and not enough water. We need leadership to address this impending disaster NOW; rather than waiting for Mother Nature to do it herself.
Yesterday’s blog: “One Term President” — just might be the answer
If you like what you see here, you may wish to join our periodic mailing list. Also, for help in your own quest to take charge of your health, you might find some useful information at our 4-Leaf page. From the seaside village of Stonington, Connecticut – Be well and have a great day.
If you’d like to order our book on Amazon, visit our BookStore now.
—J. Morris Hicks…blogging daily at HealthyEatingHealthyWorld.com