Ron Paul and LeadershipSubmitted by populargenius on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 10:37
I have had a recent discussion with a family member regarding whether or not Dr. Paul is a good leader. After much thought, I have come to realize that leadership, per se, should not the primary quality one should require of a presidential hopeful. Leadership is a strong characteristic, and is good so long as the place the followers are being led is in their best interests and not the leaders. We all know thoughout history that there have been self-serving leaders, and of course, Dr. Paul is the exact opposite.
The point I want to make is that before I am concerned with leadership, I simply want a president who will just do the right thing. In the current crop, I do not see anyone but Dr. Paul who will step and do the right thing. Also, leadership is different depending on the venue. In the congress, Dr. Paul writes bills that reflect the "right thing to do". From there, with skills of pursuasion, he could argue his fellow congressman to sponsor the bills, which I am sure he has done. But if those bills never make it past the gatekeepers to become laws, does that make Dr. Paul a poor leader? No. He is in a legislative position, not an executive one. A governor would have the ability to much more directly affect his citizens, and if he does the right thing, in the best interest of his citizens, then he is called a good leader. Once a governor is elected, they are in an executive position, and can single-handledly veto anything that comes across their desk. Dr. Paul, being a congressman, inherantly has a much less powerful position in terms of quickly and powerfully enacting policy.
So, in comparing a congressman and a governor and saying that a governor is a stronger leader is a fallacious in terms of an arguement. The governor will always seem like a better leader since they are in a position of direct leadership, as opposed to indirect legislative positions. Their abilities to "lead" are entirely different. Lastly, in terms of military leadership, all the commander in chief has to do is make a decision and he is "leading". History will decide if it is good leadership (keeping the interests of the people of the US a priority by defensive wars for example) or bad leadership (war profiteering, blowback from nation-building, etc...). If Dr. Paul became president, he would automatically have the strongest leadership of anyone in the world and more important than looking to his ability to persuade the people to agree with him, is looking to his record for DOING THE RIGHT THING, and that is on what we should base who we vote for. We all know Dr. Paul would bring our troops home and that would be the strongest leadership we could hope for. More than ever, we simply need a president who will do the right thing.