Colin Powell is a brilliant military strategist - the Sun-tzu kind that sees conflict as costly and inefficient. For him, success isn't defined as being the last man standing, but rather in terms of security, stability, economic growth and quality of life.
Powell does a brilliant presentation on leadership that should be mandatory reading for anyone who aspires to lead others. He gets this command stuff, which is why it behooves folks like Mitt Romney to listen.
So why doesn't he?
Romney's track record suggests he defines success as quashing everyone he sees as different from himself. His business history of slashing and burning teams - the people he theoretically led - fits within the same hawkish approach he's taking to foreign policy. Romney's not about leadership - he's about dominance. He probably embraces the "with us or against us" mentality. For him, America isn't defined by what it stands for so much as what it stands against.
So, the Soviet Union, er sorry, Russia - is the black hat to the US' crusading gunslinger. Gay marriage isn't just another way of building a family - it's a threat to decency. It goes on and on. Leadership is proactive - Romney is reactive.
I'm not so much about winning as I am about success. I'd love to see a decent competitor for Obama, because that's how you generate new, well thought-out ideas - not by attempting to eliminate competition, but by challenging yourself to do better. Romney decidedly fails to meet that standard.
We're all better off when we raise the bar - not lower it, as Romney seems determined to do. Just think what the tenure would be if the match-up was Powell vs. Obama. We'd all be benefit from genuine police discussion that would result from that race.
No comments:
Post a Comment