Justin Trudeau: Leadership is Lonely

Conservatives dismissed the proposal as a stunt that would do nothing to make the Senate more accountable to voters.  New Democrats accused Mr. Trudeau of trying to distance himself from the fallout of a looming audit into senators' expenses.  And senators, who began the day as Grits and ended it as outcasts, responded with a roller-coaster mix of confusion, disappointment and unflinching support.

First, the politics.  It would be impossible for either the Harper Cons or the Mulcair NDP to do anything other than criticize Trudeau's proposal.  In the charged climate of today's politics, that's just how the game is played.  You attack your opponents and everything they do and then try to make yourself look as different as possible.

What else can you do, right?  If you don't play the game, the game plays you.

Mulcair's position is the easier one - he (and a faction of his Party) have a long tradition of looking for conspiracies.  It's Team Harper that has the harder confabulatory knot to tie; they're supposed to be the Party in favour of less control and more independence in society, although their internal practices with the Senate, their Caucus, the bureaucracy, even foreign players has been anything but.

However there's more to this decision than just the politics of positioning.  By "cutting loose" his Senate Caucus, Trudeau has shrunk the size of the team that is directly accountable to him.  Unlike Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy, Trudeau and his team no longer have the ability to call Senators onto the carpet and give them hell for going off-message or acting inappropriately.  They can no longer leverage those Senators for fundraising, TV spots or as a second-tier of legislative manipulation.

It's possible Team Trudeau has made a calculated move to distance themselves from future revelations on the spending scandals, but honestly, who cares about that?  Politics is about winning big and consolidating control.  The theory is that with absolute power comes the ability to spin away any potential challenges.  

This is what Harper's been building towards since he became Leader of the Conservatives.  It's also why Harper keeps walking into political rakes; his control has come at the expense of constructive criticism, innovative solutions and flexibility.

Although he's earned grudging respect from some and absolute admiration from others for his functional fixedness, ability to weather scandals and iron-fisted control of his Caucus, Harper has always done so at the expense of his principles (transparency, openness, accountability, independence) and his people (staff, Caucus members, Senators, bureaucrats, veterans, etc).

Stephen Harper is the epitome of that peculiar breed that dominates our national landscape - the political survivor.  He always comes out on top.  

What he isn't, though - and never has been - is a leader.  

Leadership, like shame, is a concept that we've lost in Canadian politics.  True leadership isn't about coming out on top, about bending other people to your will through intimidation or encouraging small thought and in-fighting to protect one's own standing.

Colin Powell puts it best: command is lonely.

Partisan politics may be about numbers - number of memberships signed, dollars raised and doors knocked on.  When you put all that stuff first, it's easy to come to the conclusion that it's the team's responsibility to protect their boss through their labour, money and where necessary, by falling on their swords.  Again, that's how it's been done in Canadian politics for ages.

Leadership isn't about numbers; it's about vision, example and empowerment.  Where do you want to go?  What are you willing to do go get there?  Why should we follow you?

By dismissing a reliable source of bought loyalty, Trudeau has taken the burden to follow off of Liberal Senators and taken on the responsibility to lead.

We don't have much to go on with the Liberal Leader - but with moves like this, we're seeing hopeful indicators that just maybe he truly understands what leadership means.

Jesus Loves Obama

"VOTE FOR THE MORMON, NOT THE MUSLIM! THE CAPITALIST, NOT THE COMMUNIST!"

 

I'd be really curious to see just which election race this pastor is following, because there ain't no Muslim in the Presidential debate.

 

But what if there was?  To quote Coiln Powell - is there something wrong with being a Muslim in the USA?

 

There's also been questioned raised about Obama's authenticity as an American, despite his birth certificate proving otherwise.  Is there something wrong with being an immigrant in a nation of immigrants?  Yes, there's a a law about Presidents having to be born in the US, but is it a valid one?  The US is lucky in that its borders remain consistent, but what if they didn't?  Is it birth or belief that determines who is committed to the country?

 

Back the Christian thing, though.  I wonder how thoughtfully these "Obama's not a Christian" types have considered the underpinnings of their faith.  Their approach is more cult-like, focused on insiders and outsiders to the religion than they are Christ's actual message. 

 

Jesus had something to say about the insider/outsider thing: If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. (John 15:19)

 

The disparagers of diversity shouldn't need reminding that Christ himself wasn't a Christian - he was a Jewish reformer.  The first Christians weren't card-carrying members of Club Christ, either; they were believers in a man and his vision of a world that stood for something more than individual gain (granted, I think his message was Sufi-esque rather than directly literal).  Christianity began much more in the vein of Occupy, except rallied behind a leader, than it did an institution.  All the trappings of an organized religion came later.

 

The same, oddly enough, holds true of Islam.  Islam holds Christ up as a prophet rather than an end-game and kicks the ball further down the field to Mohammad.  Islam is no more a repudiation of Christianity than Christianity is a repudiation of Judaism; both offspring of the original Abrahamic religion are, if anything, adaptations to time, place and context, just was was Martin Luther's Reformation.

 

The Qu'ran (or Koran) validates the message of Christ: HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus Christ) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgement between right and wrong). (Surah 3:3-4)

 

It shouldn't have come as any surprise to faithful Christians that Libyan Muslims praised God upon finding Ambassador Stevens alive in the Benghazi embassy and tried to get him help.  They were simply acting out a shared principle: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)

 

In my opinion, those who wish to carry on the mission Christ laid out shouldn't be focused on division - that's a bit too much like casting the first stone.  Likewise, they shouldn't be looking to demonize any man or woman as being "un-Christian" - the act of demonizing itself is unbecoming of Christians.

 

But how does that help Christians who want to ensure they have a President that reflect their values?  That's a church and state thing - leave unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.  You can support a candidate that reflects your beliefs, but to demand only leaders that share the Christian brand is to stray from what Christ taught in the first place.  Instead, what Christians can do is what everyone else does - advocate and empower candidates with their perspective: And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. (2 Timothy 2:24)

 

What would Jesus do were he around today?  He would love both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney; he would probably love Ahmadinejad, al-Assad and Kim Jong-un, too.  Instead of campaigning against, he would share his counsel with both sides, and anyone else willing to listen.  This is no surprise if you're a Christian, because that's exactly what the Gospels depicts Jesus as doing in his time.  True followers of his message will do the same.

 

"Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:20)

Why Mitt Romney Should Listen to Colin Powell (But Won't)

"Look at the world. There is no pure competitor of the United States of America," he said. "All the problems we talk about in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran ... they count about 700 million people in a world of seven billion. What are the rest of them doing? They're increasing their economies, they're building wealth, they're educating their kids, they're building their infrastructure. That's what we need to be doing."

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.

Justin Trudeau, Dalton McGuinty and Sun Tzu

"But where you fall into the trap of trying to identify who the electorate is, if we were to start to focus that way, we’re already beaten.”

I have spoken with Justin Trudeau just once, but as I do with everyone I took the effort to probe his meaning, mine his body language (for sincerity, intent and broader awareness) and look through his words down the rabbit hole of his cognition.

Again, it was just once - and just for a couple of minutes - but I was impressed.

There is only one other political leader I have had the pleasure of deconstructing who demonstrates the same facile self-awareness, a comfort with their knife's-edge place in a much bigger social picture and a vision of the puzzle-like nature of the world tomorrow.  That's Dalton McGuinty - another man too easily underestimated, but at his opponents' peril. 

Both these leaders see the patterns of our times and have a good sense of what themes and emergent opportunities have longevity and which ones don't.  They both have a business-like sense of the societal market and have their sights set on growth rather than continuity or ideology.  Each of these men understand the fundamentals - vision, discipline, integrity and compassion.  Social evolution isn't achieved through shrinking one's world, but by expanding it.  This is why they both share, through different wording, the same vision; an idea of Canada that is realized by moving forward, together.  Plus, both know how to both take and throw a punch.

McGuinty has made a point of learning from the many experiences his trajectory has carried him through.  Trudeau, a young man at 40, has his best days of learning ahead of him.

Dalton McGuinty is a man with patience and will.  What he sets his mind to, when he trusts his deeply-informed instincts, he achieves.

I don't think it's fair to weigh Justin Trudeau against the legacy of his father.  Doing so just underestimates what Trudeau the Younger might accomplish in his own right.



"Leadership is the art of accomplishing more than the science of management says is possible."