CONFIDENCE BRINGS FOLLOWERS

The election just ended reinforced my belief that the most important characteristic of a leader is confidence. Even a would-be leader who is equipped with the intellect and experience to lead people through a challenge will not attract as many followers as a would-be leader who exudes a superior imperturbable confidence.

Most people, whether soldiers or voters, are unsure of themselves. In a difficult or dangerous situation they hope that somebody is better able than they are to guide them to a successful outcome. When pressure is on, emotions make the uneasy herd more likely to flock after a supremely confident leader than after a person who makes good arguments but doesn't appear as sure of himself.

Ironically, it doesn't matter whether the confidence of the strongest leader is based on superior ability or not, as long as the crowd believes that it is. 'He wouldn't be so confident if he didn't know what he's doing.' On the other hand, the confidence that brings power to a leader must be completely convincing in every way.



Words alone won't do the trick. In the recent election one candidate constantly repeated, “I can do this! I'm prepared! I know how to do this!”, but beyond the words a large number of voters intuitively felt that the man lacked complete, unshakable confidence. Tone of voice, tempo, body language, along with a kind of instability when making decisions under pressure were at least as important as words in communicating true confidence or lack thereof. From that candidate, the herd sniffed uncertainty and nervousness.

The other candidate conveyed confidence with an impressively steady demeanor under pressure, with certainty, and with a sense that his daily decision-making was thoughtful and firmly controlled. He didn't boast as much about his leadership ability as the other candidate did, but his carriage, his voice, the calm and measured movement of his body, aroused in those looking for a leader to trust a sense of steadiness, sureness, and unshakable confidence that they concluded must rest on a solid foundation.

ELECTION LINGUISTICS

You are “friends” of presidential candidates even if they've never met you.

Your dollars are always “hard earned”.

“I'm a maverick” means, “I've worked in the Republican Party for years, but now that they're in deep trouble I'm disowning them.” [“Maverick”: An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, considered the property of the first person who brands it. From Samuel Maverick, 1870 American pioneer who did not brand his calves.]

“Elitist”: One who speaks good English and is therefore ill-suited to be president.

“Just like us”: A candidate who speaks poor English and therefore qualifies for the presidency.

“Our heroes”: Everybody who has enlisted in the army.

“Support our troops” : Support continuing whatever wars the politicians have involved our troops in.

Regardless of what much of the world has thought for a century, in American politics “socialism” is the equivalent of “hell”, and “socialist” is the equivalent of “devil”.
(Exception: Socialist economic policies are not “socialism” if promulgated by Republicans.)

There are “real Americans”, and therefore “unreal Americans”. The difference can't be defined, but one clue is that the more an American favors wars and rude behavior toward foreign leaders, the more “real” he is.

Any criticism of American society is “un-American” and automatically makes the critic unfit for public office.

“Threats to our allies” means “Threats to Israel”.

“Our good, stalwart friend, Israel” means, “I want the Jewish vote”.

“It's time we get this country moving again” means, “I'm running for President.”

Congress and the Greased Pig Contest

I’ve been railing against the Democrats (and, it goes without saying, against the Republicans) for being so pusillanimous about defunding and stopping the war in Iraq. “Oh,” the Democrats whimper with quivering lips, “I know I was elected to stop the war, but now what if I’m accused of not supporting the troops?” Translated: “What gives me that best chance of being re-elected?”

I’ve said that politics in the United States is a competition for jobs, with no higher principles involved. It’s like watching a crowd of grimy contestants try to catch the greased pig at the county fair.


Here’s an excellent comment on the shallowness of it all. I recommend the entire article.

From “A Measure of Morality in Congress”, by David Swanson . . . who says that members of Congress most often vote as they do “in order to keep their committee chairmanships, or in order to receive funding for projects in their districts, or in order to receive assistance or not face opposition in their next reelection campaigns.”

“What's the worst fate a Congress Member could face as a result of voting against funding the war? For most it must be the loss of their seat. How horrible is that? Some of these congress members are freshmen, first elected last November campaigning on promises to end the war. Now they're prepared to vote $100 billion for the war in hopes of getting elected again in 2008. What in the hell did they want to get elected for in the first place? What district is going to receive less money if we end the war and redirect our spending to useful projects than if we continue the war but fund special pieces of pork here and there?”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_070322_a_measure_of_moralit.htm

Democrats' Determination?

I watched several resurrected Democrats interviewed last night on television (two by Keith Olbermann -- Senator Jay Rockefeller, House Select Committee on Intelligence, and Rep. John Murtha), and I felt as if a chill wind had blown through a warm room.

I believe in Santa Claus, and in spite of my writing that there is no important difference between the Democratic and Republican parties when it comes to things that count the most toward our national survival, I shared the general feeling after the November election that we had voted resoundingly to end the Iraq war and get the American military out as quickly as they could turn their tanks around. I dreamed that the Democrats would sweep in like a tsunami and tumble the Bush policies into oblivion.

If there was one theme to the Democrats’ election campaigns other than “we have better morals than you do”, it was, “We’ll end the war and get out of Iraq!”

Well, what I heard and saw last night was pitiful waffling. I wanted something along the lines of, “Okay, Bush, you’re finished! We’re cutting all funding for your war that we have any control over, and we’re hobbling you so you can’t send more troops over there.”

I wanted to witness vein-bulging indignation, podium-pounding determination, and promises of quick and effective action. I wanted to watch Democratic generals leaping out of trenches waving their swords toward the White House.

Instead I heard weasely, hand-wringing, “What can we do’s?” and “Bush will find ways to do what he wants no matter what we do.” Worse, I endured wimpy, “We will take a thoughtful and measured view of what is best for our country; we will evaluate all the related matters with statesmanlike responsibility; we will not do anything rash or irresponsible.” Everything short of, “We will not do anything.”

Translation: “We’re frightened to refuse to fund Bush’s military disasters because we’ll be accused of not ‘supporting our troops’ and not being patriotic.” That’s the same reason the Democrats voted to enable the Iraq war in the first place, thus abandoning any high ground they might have occupied.

Further translation: “Politicians get into less trouble by doing nothing than they do by doing something. But look at the bright side: You can always count on us to say things that sound good.”

I truly hope that my first impression is wrong, and that the Democrats act on their mandate to get us out of Iraq swiftly and make it impossible for Bush to start any new wars, as by attacking Iran or Syria as Israel’s surrogate. I do not think that the House of Representatives and the Senate need be the limp wet rags those Democrats interviewed last night seem to think they are.

The main problem -- other than breath-taking ignorance of the world and its history on the part of most politicians of both parties – is that (sorry to repeat myself), democracy in the U.S. takes place at a giant job fair, with each election a tug of war which results in more lucrative jobs for the winners and their entourages than for the losers. The only thought of most politicians is to get and keep those jobs . . . the ONLY thought.

I know I shouldn’t vote if I know it doesn’t do any good, but it seems that by each election time I’m so angry at the incumbents and their lies and crookedness that I go to the polls just to vote against them so I don’t have to look at their faces for the coming term.

Let us hope that after the Democrats finish congratulating themselves and decorating their offices and collecting gavels that they actually do something about our foreign affairs mess.

Tony Blair's "Democracy" (Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge)

My remarks about the U.S. and Britain ostensibly pressing for democracy in selected Middle East countries (not including “moderates” like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Jordan) while thwarting the results of elections if they don’t like them, find new focus today in yelpings of Robopup Tony Blair.

(“Moderate: One who, while nominally disagreeing with U.S. and Zionist policies, nevertheless does nothing to oppose them.” BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED.)

“DUBAI (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Middle Eastern states on Wednesday to help rein in the "forces of extremism" in Iran and to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

(“Extremist” as defined in my BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED: “3. Any person who resists or speaks out against U.S. or Zionist invasion and occupation of any country, or who openly opposes U.S. or Zionist interference in the internal affairs of any country.”)

“Blair, who will leave office next year and whose popularity has been eroded by the Iraq war, rejected suggestions American or British action in the Middle East was fuelling terrorism. . . . He called on moderate leaders across the Middle East to join a ‘monumental struggle’ between democracy and extremism. . . .

“Blair plans to hold talks with world leaders in early 2007 on delivering a package of aid for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has called for early elections after failing to form a unity administration with Hamas, which won elections in January but is being boycotted by the West because of its refusal to recognize the state of Israel.”

So, Blair, who backed a democratic election in Palestine, now ignores the results of that election and works to deliver “aid” to the losing party instead of the lawfully elected party. It will be interesting to find out which “world leaders” go along with him in ignoring the democratic process he and Bush instigated. Isn’t it amazing that the thrust of Blair’s statements is that IRAN is improperly interfering in the Middle East? As a friend of mine said, “Democracy” is just the flag under which the pirates are sailing.)

(What if a second election is held and Hamas wins again in spite of the payoffs to the opposing party? Or is that being “taken care of”?)

As usual, there is no logical consistency in the Blair/Bush duet (they sing in unison, a cappella). As usual, what is good for Israel and bad for the oppressed Palestinians defines “good”.

Awhile back I asked if Robopup Blair might be straining at his leash to set himself free, but the answer is “no”. I think he was just excited by a fire hydrant.


And this just in:

“(Reuters) - Israel is considering handing over millions of dollars in withheld Palestinian tax funds to President Mahmoud Abbas in a move that could bolster him ahead of elections over his Hamas rivals, sources said on Wednesday. Western diplomats and Palestinian sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the proposal under consideration calls for releasing the tax money to Abbas in stages on condition it will bypass the Hamas-led government. Transferring the funds would mark a shift in Israeli policy, and could allow the moderate Abbas to make payments to Palestinian civil servants, who have not received their full salaries since Hamas came to power in March. “