Leadership and character

From the Stoa this day I find myself walking upon the same ground twice.

I've said it several times before and I will say it again: Leadership descends from Character. A leader's qualities of right and wrong come from here. Their sense or moral justification comes from here.

I know a lot of very smart people who are complete IDIOTS. They are all brains with no discipline. They will make a child's chemistry set explode just because the box says that it can't happen.

They don't have the shaping necessary to create a truly intelligent and functionally wise individual. They act out of feelings and desire rather than with purposeful intent.

They become doctors and lawyers and politicians because of the wealth, power, and influence they feel will be afforded to them. These are the ones who are either ineffective in their roles, or worse, are very effective at accumulating the above mentioned benefits without being effective in their roles. I'm looking in your direction, Obama and Ms. Pelosi.

I find myself thinking of Newt again, unfortunately. Look, do I feel he is more "Conservative" than Mitt Romney? Yes. I think Scott Brown is more conservative, and that is not saying much.

Newt bothers me because his moral compass wanders about a lot and sometimes he says things that are very conservative and other times he is profoundly un-conservative.

Leadership descends from character. Lets judge some characters here and think about them.

Ronald Reagan. Prior member of the Democrat party. Left when he felt he no longer agreed with their philosophy. Divorced, but remarries some years later. Stuck to a set of beliefs about right and wrong throughout his life and never changed.

Newt Gingrich. Prior member of the Republican part (now RINO). Jumped when he wanted to be more popular. Married and seeing a mistress. Divorces wife and marries mistress. THEN, finds another mistress and sees her for 6 years while married. Divorces wife and marries the other mistress when wife #2 will not grant him an "open" marriage.

Which one lives a more "conservative" lifestyle? Who here is the scum-bucket and who here did this right. I'll give you a few minutes if you need to think about it.

Mitt Romney. Current Mormon. Non-polygamous. Business man who started up companies and made money from them for himself and his shareholders. Inherited the Salt Lake City Olympics behind schedule and over budget. The Olympics are held on time and under budget when he is done. RomneyCare. Oh, I can't forgive him for that.

Bill Clinton. Communist background in Moscow. Draft Dodger. Creative use of cigars and interns. Lies about lying. Gets caught. Lies about getting caught, despite the DNA. Equally immoral wife plays along to further her own political ambitions.

Right and wrong can sometimes be gray and counter-intuitive. Sometimes being mean and uncompromising IS the correct and moral thing to do. You don't just let your kids take a hatchet to the wall just because they want to.

Wife numbers 2 and 3 are, in my opinion, just a morally ambivalent as Newt. Wife number 2 should not be shocked that he cheated on her since he was cheating on his first wife with HER. She should never have allowed whatever feeling motivated her to move her from the path of virtue.

Is Newt virtuous? Not by a long shot. You don't take money from lobbies and then rip on the lobbies for having too much influence. This goes for you too, Obama. Heck, this goes to ALL the politicians out there.

Was Reagan virtuous? Yes. Iran/Contra you say? Sure, lets talk about this. He ignored Congress to stop a regime of genocide that would export that terror and pain once they solidified their control of the country. At the same time, he freed hostages secretly who would otherwise have died or been forgotten.

Ignoring the will of Congress is wrong, no matter how Communist they were at the time. Checks and balances and all that. However, the others, though of dubious long-term policy angles, are clearer cut. Saving lives while attempting to create a more stable foreign policy. I think that is virtuous.

In the end I have to ask myself who would make a better President. Who respects the rule of law more, who respects the Constitution more, and who will slide us down the hill of Communism slower.
Obama? Not just no, but HELL no!
Mitt? God no.
Ron Paul? Full on Libertarian is Road Warrior world to me. So no.
Santorum? So far I like him, but I doubt he can win.
Newt Gingrich? For all the crap I heap on him, he may be the best choice from this motley group jacks. I'll vote with my nose pinched, though.

Remember, having character does not make you a wuss. Reagan bombed the crap out of Libya to make a point. If anything, I think having character prevents more problems otherwise because the bad guys will know that you can not be persuaded to "tolerate" their actions. Think about that.

Off to enjoy a wonderful Friday.

Live well.

--Zavost