America Needs Statesmanship!

America is in need of Statesmanship in today's climate of  volitility!
Statesmanship is the ability to stand on principle, be honest and concerned for the future good of the nation and know how to paint a vision for that future with concern for the opposition's interests. A statesman is able to inspire hope, purpose and vision for the nation and its immediate needs. We have seen too few statesman these days!

Here are some quotes about statesmanship from a Founder, presidents, writers, an economist, and a doctor.

"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
Posted in James Madison
Tagged enlightened, Federalist No. 10, helm, James Madison, statesmenAuthor: James Madison

Context: Federalist No. 10

Year: 1787

“One man's opportunism is another man's statesmanship”


Milton Friedman quotes (American Economist, b.1912)


“Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.”


James Russell Lowell quotes (American Poet, Critic, Essayist, Editor and Diplomat, 1819-1891)

"Science will never be able to reduce the value of a sunset to arithmetic. Nor can it reduce friendship or statesmanship to a formula.”


Dr. Louis Orr quotes

“The essence of statesmanship is not a rigid adherence to the past, but a prudent and probing concern for the future.”


Hubert H. Humphrey quotes

"In statesmanship get the formalities right, never mind about the moralities.”


Mark Twain quotes

"Honest statesmanship is the wise employment of individual manners for the public good”


Abraham Lincoln quotes

Happy New Year! New Hope for Tomorrow

As a child many are asked what they want for Christmas. Christmas was meant for a child's "hopes and dreams". It is otherwise, called "human hope". Christmas is a suggestion that the world is in line with their heart. We all have "hearts". But, hearts are easy to bruise, if they are vulnerable to desire or love, at all. This is why there is the 'NEW YEAR"! Our disappointment with others or outselves can be "cleared away" and we can find "new hope" for tomorrow. Humans have a basic need to have hope for "new vision"..

What is hope? Hope is about dreams, and possibilities. Hope becomes diseased or bitter when it has been dashed upon the inevitable realities of life. The realities of life are starkly grey, where hope is 'black and white". Hope is where  dreams and visions are clearly seen, but not yet accomplished. Realtiy is a blur or indistinct until a human heart embraces its own "delight". Then, hope clears the grey and makes the distinction between the black and white...

Passion of heart is not bad. but it can lead to an inattentiveness to others, and their personal goals. This is important to remember if one is in leadership. Leaders are meant to lead, but they are also meant to serve. And service is first about knowing the other's heart, so leading can be with clear vision, and not undiscerning passion. Otherwise, we trample another's "human hope".

Why I Love the Quote by Heinlein

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. -- Robert A. Heinlein

I love this quote because those that love to control others think they are leaders, but what they are really doing is not leadership, but tyranny. Leadership is about winning the right to lead, not manipulating others with dishonesty or power plays.

I love this quote because those that have ideals and define them for others, do a disservice to others, because they do not allow others the right to think and understand what they would choose to believe and what they value and why.

The later type are critical thinkers. They do not take things on face value, therefore, they would ask questions, and investigate to understand another without making assumptions, presumptions and demands based on their understanding of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The idealist would think that the real leader would be those who are so focused on the goal that they see clearly what the "end" is. These understand their vision from pig-headed stubornness, if they are not careful. Whenever something is clear to us, we also need to be aware that others may not see or understand things the same way. This way, communication is valued and negotiation can be closer to reality. And then the vision so clearly seen can be adjusted to take into account all of the "team".

Equality

One of the philosophical dilemmas that I have been reading on, is between equality or elitism. It is not a matter of whether there will be elitism, but what type or kind...as leadership is about elitism.

Should equality be based on standardization of the eononmy? These leaders believe that the "masses" should be equal in outcomes, not opportunity. Equality in outcomes means that costs will be similar. Govenment is to maintain the costs of healthcare so that all people can have the same or similar healthcare plan. But, the leaders that are voting this way are not going to submit to the same "equality of outcome". Their "place of priviledge" gives them the right to better choices about their healthcare plan. What this really means is that they don't have to pay for others to have healthcare, not in reality.

Other leaders base their equality on opportunity. These believe that outcome or maintaining costs should not be the focus, but rectifying the injustice through equal opportunity. No discrimination for the individual to have the right of choice. The government does not demand that the individual "take the opportunity" or the right of a certain outcome.. The government is only there to rectify injustice in concerns to discrimination about opportunity. These are civil liberties.

Risks about the choices one makes, whether that means not getting the education needed for a better job, or taking a risk by investments and enteuperneurship. These are individual choices or liberties that Americans value and should value, as it maintains the free society that we have been used to.

Poverty is a social problem, but approaching the problem through equalizing the outcomes, demoralizes those that might choose to do otherwise than what government demands. Is it not the right of the individual who produces to get profit from his effort and labot? Or is government going to determine 'what is right" or "moral" in regards to salary? Is government to be the moral police officier in how the individual chooses to live their life? This will be the case whenever the government gets more and more involved with the decisions of individuals and families in America. We will then have little need for the vision that inspired our Founders to protect our inalienable rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because government will TELL us what we are to value and how we are to live.

Dominion and Stewardship

Christians believe in the "creation mandate". These believe that since God created all that is, humans are responsible to be responsible. It is no less true for the scientific materialists. These also believe that one must dominate and steward the earth's resources. Therefore, there has been an alliance of purpose, so that the world, or globalized efforts will "come into being". But, is 'one purpose' the best way or best option among options of "leading the world"?

Science in the West has been useful to bring about a better way of life, in quality to health, and comfort of lifestyle. We believe that science gives us opportunities to explore and discover yet to be known facts about our physical environment, so the the earth can be its best in serving mankind's needs.

Christians, and other faiths, also believe that the earth is of value to protect. Therefore, the environmental movement, from global warming to recycling has impacted the globe, whether believer or unbeliever. "Avatar" is only one amongst many sci fi movies that feature American interests in science, environment and "mystery" (the yet to be discovered).

"One world" can come about through such goals and visions of stewardship and dominion. But, in our world of global conflict, ideological differences, is it going to bring about "the Kingdom of God", "peace on earth", or "Utopian dreams"?

With limited resources, and within limited means of bettering the world, how are we to envision that all will have equal? or live under equal protections of "law and order"? Is duplicity a means to that end? And what of those that are duped under such means? What is the real purpose of the law?

It becomes clearer as the West has opened its doors and heart to those "without", whether national identity or social and economic means, that the world is much too complex to hope for "utopian ideals". Laws define the boundaries around national identity. And laws conflict when ideology conflicts. This is why some in the West are frustrated by Islam's demand for special consideration of their laws. The U.N. has acquiesed. And the West is suffering under what to do with Shairi'a.

This is not to say that those that have "hearts of gold" or seek to "sainthood" should not seek to do good, waiting for a reward later, or whether they just don't "miss" the funds they send because they have so much anyway.

I just oppose those who want their visions to be everyone's. Stewardship and dominion must be held, defined and expressed within different value systems. Stewardship may mean for those without the ability to give to the poor, that they don't buy the "Coke", so they can afford the formula for the baby at home. And for those who have so much, well, they are free to give as their hearts desire, because they won't miss it anyway.

Dominion of the earth and its "goods" is a way of viewing leadership in honing the earth's resources to better mankind. Scientists have the ability to dominate the earth in the way their specific expertise designs. But the personal commitments, and values of individual scientists, will determine how that will be lived out in their lives. There is no "one way of being in the world". It is a matter of commitment, choice, and value. And it is a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What Are You Afraid Of?

I am sure that anyone who knows me, knows that I do not want to be controlled, as I value freedom. But, doesn't everyone value freedom? If we allow others the same freedom we would want, we do to them as we would want done to ourselves. This is fultilling the Golden Rule.

But, some are fearful that if they do not control others, then they will not "fulfill" their ultimate purpose(s). These have depended on others to carry out their "vision". While others are necessary to carry out any plan that is greater than "self-improvement", people have to co-operate, which means that they must believe in the "vision" and are committed to helping carry out the vision.

One of the signs of a great leader is inspiring others, not just initially, but when the going gets tough, to hang in there and not "bail out". But, leaders should always be open to new information or input from others, as those who are affected bythe vision should have a "voice" in their "life choices" and commitments. Good leaders are not offended or angry over criticism, as they desire to get a broader picture of the problem, so encouraging as many voices as possible is desired and really necessary. The more voices that are heard, the more likely problems will be alleviated.

Fear can be alleviated by information, as everyone grasps their "part" as they have committed to "vision". Our liberal democracy allows many avenues to fulfill one's duty, life purpose, or "vision". So, in our liberal democracy there should be no fear, but fear itself.

Systems

Systems is "globalized thinking" and it is applied to many disciplines today. Just today, I saw a comment that was "systemic" in its paradigm. Systemic thinking bothers me in some ways...as it ends up becoming an "enmeshed identity" that hinders the "outsider" from bringing change, impacting the whole, or offering their "part", as the "whole" has already been identified, with everyone's "place" pre-determined.

The comment in this article said something to the effect that roachs, ants, etc. have their function, and though they are not higher state beings, they do serve a purpose to the overall 'ecology". This "wholism' emphasis is the focus, not just of our biological or ecological systems, but also our political realms in systems thinking. And sometimes I think it leads to a "type" of Aryanism, a certain breed of person is 'better than another'. It is breeding ground for in-group and out-group mentality.

I do not think that systems is innately "evil" but systems approaches to local communities can diminish and de-value the individual to only a function, especially if the person is not informed as to the system's goals or focus. And the system sometimes may "loose out" on someone that could benefit the organization or system, if there had been an open vision, instead of a tightly defined one.

As I was driving home tonight, I thought about the individual within the system. It is like being in a foreign country and not knowing the language, customs, or the traffic. Imagine a person trying to make decisions about crossing a street and not being able to read the signs. Instead of bringing a benefit, or at least not being a distraction, he becomes an obstacle and a danger to himself and others.

This is why leadership is responsible to inform and give vision and help the 'team to remain fcused on the goal of the group, or organization (system). If this uninformed person senses that he is "in the way" or making problems for others, there is self recrimination that is really not his responsibility, but bad leadership. This is inhumane and cruel, as it brings a message of insignificance or de-valuing of the person. And it gives away leadership's attitude toward this person as "just a roach" in the system (even when the "roach" has a function as in our ecological system, it is the message that is the important thing to watch, as it appeals to pride in leadership and hinders morale in the "roach"..)

Globalization calls for us to be informed about many issues, which no one person can handle. As I was listening to the discussion on NPR concerning policy of piracy, The ones discussing policy were concerned about a certain "issue", I thought about how important it is to be a part and an informed part of the whole. This benefits everyone's part, as all roles are "working on the same problem, or within the same paradigm, etc.).

Vision can hinder dynamic and change, if the vision is too tightly defined. This is a "funnel approach to leadership. My husband and I had an experience that seemed to be a "funnel approach" to "dynamic" when a friend applied for the buisness chairmanship at our local university. I was talking with my husband over dinner about it, and I wondered out loud what would have happend to our university if he had been hired. He had been a VP and an international negotiator for Hewlitt Packard for many years. I just wondered what would have happened....

I think that systemic thinking sometimes limits humans from seeing others as human beings, and relates to them as "roles". Of course, it is good for a false sense of superiority in hierarchial organizing, but it really hinders relationships and can bring a de-moralization to many that may feel that they are just a role or function, and not a significant part that is valued and important. And inevitably, it hinders the whole, as the "roach" is needed for the whole to "win the game. Are leaders telling their "roaches" that they are "just a roach", by their attitude and actions?

Christ as Symbol and Substance

The end of the law is Christ. What did Paul mean by this? Christ's life had come to full fruition or maturity to come into "sonship". Sons of God are those who "rule and reign" with God. They create and express beauty.

Beauty is the ability within man to become and express. Christ's life was a symbol of representation of God's gifting within, and his life consisted of the substance of expression within history. Christ's life expressed the work of charitable service.

While Christ's life represented a full son's expression, it was only one life. His example is one that is symbol for those who need modelling, but it is one of sustenance to those who have come to maturity of expression.

Life was meant to develop and come to fruition with expression in particular gifting and call. This is what our university's Life Calling and Leadership is about....

So, it is not about salvation, except in from those who would oppress the gift, and it is not about sanctification, except to consecrate one's gifts to the benefit of others. The result is a life lived in fullness and abundance.

It is not about what or where or to whom, but when it it time, the fullness of time....the maturity of development in vision and hope.

The Hope for America's Giving and Sacrifice

There has been much said about giving to the poor, and all of us sacrificing, as the economy is in dire straits. I have nothing against giving to the poor, but I do have much that I am in opposition to when it comes to others deciding where I or another should sacrifice. Obama' s call for all of us to sacrifice for the nation, is no less what other Presidents have called for when our nation has needed to defend itself in the time of war, or other times of economic challenges. This I have no problem with, but I do have a problem with plans that are made for the "greater good" which designates someone as the scapegoat, no matter what the cause, as I believe the principle is wrong. No one should be used for any purpose without their full knowledge and full consent. It is unethical, not to mention, unfair.

When we speak today of fairness, many have the idea of equal distribution, which I think is not a healthy or proper way of viewing life. Why? Because we all cannot hold the same office, or have the same things, or be the same person as someone else. But, it is equal opportunity that is an important value to be upheld, as all of us need a "helping hand" at times. It is when there is an attempt to determine what another's position, mission, purpose, focus, values, lifestyle, etc. should be that becomes problematic and dangerous in our free society! All of us are valued in America, at least these are our country's principles, and "ideals". And as a result, we should be and are, for the most part, gracious people to others, in spreading democracy in whatever way we can.

I think that although we have many challenges ahead of us, as a nation, I believe that our country's foundations of freedom are too ingrained for our nation to collapse. Others would disagree with me, as they fear that our values have left the "Moral Majority" and its cause(s). No, I believe that even the recent activism of atheists are because of public concern. ( I just got a message from CFI about perplexed parents desiring to train their children in a pluralistic society. I find this is a noble cause, as it brings reason to the table when discussing religion. And reason is not religion's strength!).

My hope for America and her future, is the same as any American's, "freedom and justice for all, with a continued and renewed hope for our future."....and I think Kennedy's call to all of us"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.".... This is a worthy and noble cause that all of us, as Americans, should value....

A Necessary Follow-up Question

If "philosopher kings" rule the land and make "social reality", then wherein lies the individual's conscience? Do philosopher kings develop/interpret law, describe social reality through vision, and implement the plan? How do philosopher kings represent their "underlings", or do they construct the reality that the underlings are to "live in" by the educational vision they "implement"?