IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A GOOD LEADER

ROLE OF THE PERSONALITY IN HISTORY – IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A TRUE LEADER

There are many examples in history where public figures and leaders of various countries and organizations played an outsized role in changing the world around them and became famous for that, sometimes in a good way, sometimes infamously.

Why do we need leaders?

Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Christopher Columbus, Leonardo Da Vinci, Napoleon, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Chairman Mao, Presidents Lincoln, Churchill, Kennedy, and Reagan, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, along with Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Warren Buffett, among many others, became symbols of military conquest, major discoveries and progress in art and science, symbols of hate and tyranny, symbols of defiance and struggle against injustice, etc. Their personalities propelled them into becoming larger-than-life figures.

It would have been nice if most humans were independent, self-sufficient people capable of organizing themselves into self-governing and orderly communities and not needing anyone to lead them. However, that is not the case—not in underdeveloped countries, not in developing countries, not in decaying Europe or the U.S., and not in the rest of the civilized world.

Those of us who own property, houses, and businesses may be somewhat more capable of self-government than the majority of people who live in apartments, work for someone else, or choose to get government handouts, EDD, and permanent welfare checks and live off tax cash refunds, but let’s be honest—we all need leaders.

Humans like leaders. Humans need leaders for whatever cause they want to pursue. Boring bureaucrats can try running the machinery to promote a cause behind closed doors, but without a leader that inspires followers, there is no cause to promote or fight for. It’s impossible to make a difference without a leader who will inspire and energize people to participate. Trying to accomplish something without a recognizable and charismatic leader is like trying to get body organs to function without a brain.

By examining their psyche of liberal progressives“victims of compassion” essay explains how and why they are driving us all off the cliff– if you want to understand  liberal soul  and how its connected to  dalai lamist ideas of indiscriminate sharing with parasites  check out pages 72-82 of this essay

World leader examples

Germany, headed by the extremely uncharismatic Olaf Scholz, and some other European countries that think they can be governed by boring bureaucrats making some behind-the-scenes non-transparent moves, have learned their lesson—the charismatic and increasingly popular right-wing movement leaders have gotten their parties a lot more seats in the European Parliament. Dutch nationalist leader Wilders is the most prominent politician in Holland. Jordan Bardella, the leader of the “right-wing” opposition National Front, is the most popular politician in France. Giorgia Meloni is the most popular leader in Italy.

Ukrainian President Zelensky became the symbol of resistance to an unprovoked invasion by a much bigger and aggressive neighbor, but Russian President Putin is still extremely popular in Russia and in many countries that challenge the West. Argentina elected a very popular president, Javier Milei. Salvadoran President Bukele turned around the situation in El Salvador by cracking down on crime and conducting radical reforms and remains an extremely popular leader in Central America. After so many decades power and dealing with extraordinarily difficult challenges at home and abroad, Netanyahu remains the most prominent leader of Israel.

45th President vs. 46th President

Our 45th president and opposition leader is still able to compete with our current 46th president in polls despite an unprecedented and long-running smear campaign against him and political persecution by the current administration. The current governing establishment crossed a line that no other administration had crossed in the past—attempting to marginalize the opposition by initiating major criminal investigations and a criminal prosecution campaign against the opposition in courts by prosecutors friendly to the current regime.

Would it have been necessary for Mr. 46 and his allies to go to such lengths, crossing all imaginable red lines between democracy and totalitarianism, had Mr. 46 been able to beat Mr. 45 in the battle of ideas, the battle for leadership fair and square, with equal due process afforded to both of them, including equal mainstream media platforms?

Mr. 46 is getting as much mainstream media protection as he needs and has been receiving it for the past 4 years; Mr. 46 has been sheltered from any hostile press conferences and inconvenient opposition journalist questions; Mr. 46 can boast 40 years of legislative experience as a moderate able to talk to both sides of the aisle, passing an infrastructure legislation, avoiding defaults, forgiving student debt for many of his supporters, implementing semi-conductor protectionist measures, as well as some job creation and higher wages, and some climate change measures, etc. Mr. 46 can arguably claim that he was able to prevent Ukraine from losing the war so far. In early 2021, Mr. 46 had an approval rating of at least 55%. And yet, nowadays Mr. 46 is really struggling in all polls.

Low Popularity Causes for the 46th President

This begs the question: Why does our current president have such low ratings, and his popularity index is hovering around 37%? Is he a leader of historic proportions like the ones we mentioned at the beginning of the article? And if he isn’t such a leader, then why?

When you look at Joe B’s performance as president, you have to separate his policies and his leadership.

Bad Domestic Policies

As far as his policies go, he is sharing the blame for their failure with his party. In 2021, his party and its left wing pushed for more and more free money giveaways to employees who were ready to go back to work but decided not to because of eviction moratoriums, EDD checks, and other massive “RESCUE package” handouts. These “rescue packages” created unprecedented labor shortages and supply chain disruptions. Next followed inflation with free money spending frenzies. Quiet resignation parasites who were too lazy to work and got spoiled contributed to the problem. Consumers vs. employees conflict was created—lazy, spoiled employees who know only their rights and not their responsibilities demanded “employee appreciation” from employers and consumers while prices rose and quality service deteriorated tremendously.

Simultaneously with this economic upheaval, which could have been avoided if JB and his allies had stopped giving free money and canceled all eviction moratoriums, another crisis was artificially created—the border crisis. Under Mr. 45, the border was closed, but for unknown reasons, Mr. 46 suddenly opened the floodgates, allowing 7 million people to cross illegally over the past three years. Now, in response to low polls, especially on immigration, Mr. 46 is trying to close the border, but isn’t it a bit too late? This half-hearted and belated effort to “fix” the problem he created doesn’t even include the deportation of the 7 million who crossed illegally during Joe B’s administration! And why would anyone trust the same person who created a problem of these enormous proportions to fix it? Wouldn’t it make more sense to trust someone else with the deportation of the 7 million undocumented persons, someone who actually closed the border, wanted to build a wall, and generally verifiably wants to stop illegal migration?

Energy independence doesn’t seem possible with only the help of solar and wind—we need fossil fuels and nuclear power to achieve that, and yet Mr. 46 did everything in his power to destroy the fossil fuel industry under the questionable pretext of global warming.

Bad Foreign Policy

Internationally, it was one disaster after another: Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Ukraine, Israel. Presidents typically, and by constitution, have much more power over foreign policy than Congress, which is more responsible for domestic policy. This was the area for Mr. 46 to shine. He could never complain that Manchin or Sinema or the so-called evil Republicans ruined his foreign policy. He had unrestrained power to manage foreign policy in any way he saw fit.

What leadership did we see from Mr. 46 in foreign policy?

In Afghanistan, we saw an embarrassing evacuation as our forces were being overwhelmed by the medieval barbarian Taliban. Then came Ukraine—at the beginning, it looked like President Joe would actually deliver on that front. He pushed Europeans to contribute and started supplying Ukraine with weapons and building an anti-Russian coalition. Ukraine was able to survive and not get completely swallowed by Russia. Ukrainians developed a love for the U.S. and hoped that Mr. 46 would help them win and liberate their territory from Russia. Ukrainians were asking for F-16s, long-range artillery, more Patriot systems, more tanks, and permission to strike deep into Russian territory—Ukraine was sure that they would get all the necessary help to win, especially considering bipartisan approvals for more financial aid to their war effort. They even scheduled a counteroffensive in reliance on all the signals coming from Washington. What did Mr. 46 do? Rather than giving Ukrainians what they were asking for and ensuring that they win the war and that American taxpayers don’t have to spend any more money on it, Mr. 46 refused to help. He refused to provide F-16s, refused to give more Patriot systems, refused to allow Ukrainians to strike within Russia, he was sometimes approving ATACMS missiles but very few; he basically sabotaged his own priority which purportedly was for Ukraine to win and liberate its territory from Russian invaders!

The Ukrainian counteroffensive was doomed and became an embarrassment. Ukraine started losing and continues to lose—and that was the number one foreign policy priority for Mr. 46!

Then came the Hamas attack on Israel. You would think that Mr. 46 would seize this latest opportunity to shine and deliver a decisive blow to Hamas, alongside Israel, our only ally in the Middle East. You might expect that, short of sending American troops to turn Gaza into a parking lot, our leader would at least allow Israel to act freely. But no, that’s not what Mr. 46 did. Instead, he joined the chorus of pro-Palestinian voices lamenting the loss of so-called “civilians,” Gaza women and children, who without exception despise Israel and actively assist Hamas terrorists in their efforts to kill Jews. Mr. 46 took the enemy’s side just to appeal to the left wing of his party, which remains displeased with him because he did not halt all military aid to Israel as they insist on U.S. campuses…

Along with all these failures, Mr. 46 failed to hold China accountable for COVID-19, to stop its government’s trade and currency manipulation, to confront its espionage, and to separate our economies to ensure that we do not depend on China for anything.

Also, Mr. 46 completely removed the U.S. from being a power broker in the Middle East by allowing China to broker peace between the Saudis and Iran and by unfreezing massive amounts of money for Iran which enabled Iran to prepare and finance the October 7 attacks.

Mr. 46 abandoned all plans to overthrow socialist governments in Venezuela and Cuba, welcomed socialist governments in Brazil and Colombia, and essentially abandoned any remaining U.S. influence south of the border.

Most of Mr. 46’s policies led to unnecessary economic suffering domestically from high prices and high cost of living and one international disaster after another.

Lack of Personal Leadership

As for Mr. 46’s personal leadership as president, things are looking substantially worse. At his last State of the Union address, Mr. 46 delivered a very angry and socialist-natured message to our business community, warning that if re-elected he will make them pay their “fair share” and increase taxes on the “wealthy” to subsidize more populist government handouts to bureaucracy and welfare addicts, and those parasites who prefer that other people pay for their healthcare.

Most of the time, Mr. 46 spends hiding from the public, only to appear occasionally at extremely rare and carefully orchestrated campaign events or press conferences where he is shielded from any inconvenient questions by opposition journalists or even by mainstream media that sometimes gets too curious.

When Mr. 46 does speak, it’s mostly from a teleprompter or occasionally he whispers or mumbles some incoherent and bizarre off-the-cuff remarks, which make his team nervous and confuse the audience.

Mr. 46 doesn’t seem to connect with the crowd in any meaningful way; he appears rigid, distant, and plainly uncharismatic. Looking back at his career as a professional government official, we understand why this is the case. Some critics blame his age, but at 82, there are plenty of personable, likable, intelligent old men still on top of their game. We don’t know whether Mr. 46 has really lost his mental acuity because he didn’t seem to have any even 30 or 20 years ago.

When Mr. 46 was in Congress, he learned to be a follower and to toe the party line very closely to secure party support for re-election. This is the number one rule within the bureaucracy: you must obey your superiors and, rather than showing some initiative or independent thinking, you must follow instructions and never express your personal opinion or challenge authority. Mr. 46 was comfortable with this because, despite his desire to be in public life, he didn’t really want to be in a decision-making position. He did participate in legislative processes, but never made a name for himself by being an author of groundbreaking legislation. The first black president chose Mr. 46 intentionally to be his vice president because vice presidents are not supposed to have a personality of their own and are supposed to be obedient and remain in the shadow of a president. Not surprisingly, in 2016 the party told Mr. 46 not to pursue the presidency as was expected because they believed he lacked the charisma and popularity to run against Mr. 45, and they needed to make history by pushing for a woman president so they picked Hillary, who seemed more viable in all respects. However, she lost and they probably had regrets about promoting her.

In 2020 the party was desperate to get rid of Mr. 45—and they searched and searched for the best candidate to challenge Mr. 45 and couldn’t find any. Then party elites realized that Bernie was uncontrollable and too extreme and convinced themselves and the rest of the party that he was unelectable, so they suppressed him despite him being far more popular than either Hillary or Mr. 46. But party elites suddenly realized that they needed someone who would NOT have a personality, who would seem HUMBLE, who would be a stark contrast to the “narcissistic” and “bombastic” Mr. 45 because the contest was not really between party candidate vs. Mr. 45: the contest was between people who absolutely hated Mr. 45 and absolutely loved Mr. 45, it was all about Mr. 45. So for the role of Mr. 45’s opponent, party elites needed someone who is almost invisible, who doesn’t irritate the public, someone obscure and at the same time obedient to the party and someone who seems to be stable, moderate, and experienced; a typical boring and bland bureaucrat. This is how they came up with Joe, who reluctantly agreed to run to help his party defeat their arch-enemy, Mr. 45. One way or another, Mr. 46 was handpicked for the impression he was making; a benevolent and experienced steady hand and a harmless low-key grandpa—a stark contrast to Mr. 45’s bombastic and fiery style.

This was the most sensible choice in that situation for the party leadership. However, after the party prevailed, everything started falling apart. The “leader” they chose predictably could not lead. He just followed the party line, pushing some half measures and signing populist legislation that caused inflation and an economic crisis. Thus, Mr. 46 fulfilled his mission to win the presidency, but could not govern for the same reason he was chosen to run: lack of personality, lack of initiative, low-key type, inability to think independently and make bold moves. Mr. 46 reacted to one crisis after another instead of averting them. Mr. 46 kept hiding from the public, taking more vacations than any other president, avoiding press conferences, delegating to some gray cardinals to run his office, and picking an identity-based vice president who became an embarrassment. Mr. 46 could be likened to President Calvin Coolidge, who was silent during most of his career and rarely seen in public, except that President Coolidge presided over the Roaring Twenties and Mr. 46 presided over an economic crisis his administration created.

A Tool But Not a Historic Leader

Based on the above, it doesn’t seem that Mr. 46 can become a major historic figure even if he gets re-elected. Even if re-elected, he will probably be a lame duck president without any more ability to pass any legislation and will continue to suffer embarrassing international defeats. It’s difficult to imagine what specific accomplishment Mr. 46 can be remembered for other than helping his party defeat their worst enemy. If your main accomplishment is to be a tool for someone else to accomplish their goals, then you are not a leader. Tools are tools—they are instruments used by an independent actor to perform functions conceived by the independent actor, but tools cannot conceive any function for themselves being an inanimate object! We don’t need a TOOL to lead us, we need a leader to lead us, someone who has his own ideas, his own strong personality, someone who takes the initiative rather than obeying someone else, someone who has personal convictions that carry common sense and is ready to fight for common sense against political correctness and to represent those of us who want to be self-sufficient and productive and not be parasites. Unfortunately, Mr. 46 is not such a leader.