My Ideal Model of Political Leader
About My Political Cynicism
In few of my articles with political themes I always introduced myself as a political cynic. Usually, I don't have a particularly high opinion of cynics, as they tend to belittle something almost for sake of belittling itself, while not suggesting any alternative solution.
In this article I would like to correct that about my being a cynic. Indeed, it's a cheap blow to merely sneer at a career. (Don't mind the form of this last sentence, I just finished writing a couple of poems, and my mind is still with rhymes, LOL).
Well, I guess I would have to trick you into reading those other articles if I was to leave to them to explain my being a political cynic---and I won't do that. You see, I simply don't trust politicians, any of them, and you just couldn't catch me having a favorite even if she looked like a movie star instead of a middle aged woman, or if he had an I.Q. of 200 plus every medal in existence for defending his country.
On the down side of the criterion, neither would you catch me fussing over that part of his resume that includes the color of his hair, size of his fingers, or the amorous history of her husband.
Adding to it---their horoscope sign, favorite foods, and their last colonoscopy, to rule out the possibility of their being full of crap. I hope I have made it clear that nothing about a presidential candidate could either impress me or serve as a turnoff.
As you will be able to gather from my upcoming description of my ideal political leader, a candidate's capacity and inclination of lying would never have a chance to become an issue, because his resume would have to be very straightforward and easily verifiable, just like a resume of an applicant for any job.
Just a Job---Not a Pedestal of Might
And guess what---my El Presidente would have a "job"---he would not be anything like "the most powerful man in the world". Personally, I don't feel so insecure in this world as to need my Big Daddy to be stronger than all other Daddies in the world.
By the way, you folks who may be sensitive about genders, don't mind my using only male gender for my model of president---I am 72 and I get tired and bored mentioning both genders every time, although of course, I mean either of them equally.
Now, where was I...yes, my kind of president would be an employee of the Supreme Court which would go strictly by the Constitution, leaving no improvisations and discretions to the president.
They would be watching him like a bunch of hawks, and supposing that the Constitution says so, he would have to work for the best interests of the majority, not just the "ruling class" whispering orders behind the throne.
Screw them, if you ask me, they got their billions, and they should be enjoying them somewhere at a rich resort surrounded by a harem of beauties and a cardiologist for just in case---but they should stay clear of politics. Just like your bus driver should stay clear of splitting atoms and sending a rocket into space.
So many aspects referring to general employment would apply to presidency; because, again, it's a job. The Supreme Court would hire the dude and fire the dude, not waiting for the end of his term if he is not performing.
Now, I can sense so many of you already clenching your fists and yelling into your computer screen: "Wait a minute! What about voting and democracy?! Screw that if I can't call my president names! Demonstrating is so much fun! Man, don't you like street socializing and venting out all the accumulated crap from job, from kids and wife, and your better-doing friends?!"
An Important Matter of Qualification
Well, sorry guys, not in my book of an ideal leader. You know why? For the same reason why you don't know how to split an atom or send a rocket into space. To borrow a word from my French dictionary---you know shit nothing about running a country.
Those crooks in news media sold you this illusion that you know all the "lingo", all "works", and all "players" involved. You don't. Really, you don't have a slightest idea how complicated it is to run all those departments and play that highly demanding diplomatic chess game with the competing countries.
Indeed, as far as I am concerned, the media might as well use horoscope and a bunch of fortune-tellers for their assessments and predictions. Take my word for it or don't, but those most crucial pieces of information that would give us a clear picture of what's going on politically---are classified.
Speeches and interviews are not "it", they are refined leftover from a careful estimation of what is suitable for the public to know. Like I said in another of my articles---to declassify all that stuff would be similar to allowing a bunch of kindergarten kids into a cockpit of a flying jet.
Now, I admit, there is a silly paradox in all this. Namely, we DO need democracy and voting for as long as there is no one "up there" to guarantee to us that our government will "walk the line".
In my ideal arrangement, the Supreme Court would be the "people's lawyer" protecting the interests of a "Joe-the-janitor" and a Dr.Joe".
Nukes Are Our Peace-Keepers
At this point I would like to insert some of my ideas about the necessity of a military engagement. You see, we shouldn't use military force on the basis of hypotheticals.
Like, we can't keep fighting our friends' "potential" enemies, just like we are not fighting our own "potential" enemies. Just because someone "might" attack us is not enough to bomb the crap out of them. That's paranoia in its last stage of insanity.
Also, all this idiocy about the Third World War should be recognized as the cheap trick of the alarmists to get some online views from those who are easy to scare. Try to see it from the perspective of a simple psychology.
Those with their "finger over the nuke-button" are way too much in love with their status of power, admiration from family, and envy of their political rivals---as to go suicidal by imagining that they can hide somewhere in Brazilian jungle if they don't win. One big mushroom cloud pops-up---a whole bunch of them pop-up in a matter of seconds, and no one is saved. Nukes are the greatest guaranty against another world war.
It's simple psychology, not a rocket science, because absolutely no one starts a war that they can't win. And that's equally true about the terrorists, who have their own agenda---and agenda always involves a good turnout in the future.
Thus, we should not look the same way at suicide-bombers and nuke-suicide-bombers, because there is nothing like a "better future" for their kind if everything goes up in smoke.
This would be my assessment of the military threats---as I am trying to make obsolete and irrelevant the existing boogie-man mentality spread among the masses. Nobody is after our precious ass.
Even the North Korean boss (look, I can even be nice about him) is smart enough to just stick to playing his psychological war; his bluffs being equally transparent as ours---hey, in some not so far future we might even make friends. You be the judge---would it be the first time that bitter opponents turned friends in the political arena?
Not "Powerful"---but "Serving" Ones
I will let you laugh all you want, but this idea of an "employed leader" is a sort of futuristic stuff with realistic overtones. Those coming generations---already showing a great inclination towards technology and pragmatism---won't have any interest in repeating something that obviously didn't work in the past.
I just can't say it enough times---it's about Einstein's definition of insanity: "Doing the same over and over and expecting different results."
Sooner or later we'll have to snap out of it. This is not a happy world, and, as the old adage has it: "Fish stinks from its head". This world doesn't need "powerful" but "serving" decision makers.
Running a country is a very complex and serious business, and it shouldn't be either in hands of power-hungry careerists or in hands of the masses---jury style, who simply don't qualify for the job.
The less straightforward the government is, the bigger government body is needed to cover all possibilities of malfunctioning. Besides, with less "impressive" personality-cult of a leader, the lesser is international tension.
If all leaders of the world were simply "officials", they would act as officials, not like powerhouses intimidating one another in a psychological war---which in my book is quite a childish crap anyway.
So, let me leave you at this, hoping that you got at least some entertainment out of this speculating about my ideal model of a political leader.