Serious Philosophical Query: Do we really need leaders?

[mopaul]

the current system we have, in which we vote for people to lead us, is strange, coming from an alien perspective. we pick from among the tiny tiny pool of candidates running for a particular group or party, and we go to the polling booths, and we elect them, and then we follow THEIR orders.

we call these elected officials 'leaders'. and we see our president as the number one top leader of us all. how silly is this shit? if we were just now starting a system like this, we'd be laughed out of the room.

yet, we still do it. when bush stole the election so very obviously and arrogantly, we let him. when he wanted to go to iraq, we told him we didn't want that, but he went anyway. i guess we figure, he's our LEADER so what the hell else CAN we do?

reagan and now bush the second, prove once and for all that old canard, 'anybody can be president in the u.s.'. sadly it's true.
we give some mystical power to the office itself, apparently no matter who the hell occupies it. why?

philosophically and politically and anthropologically.....why?

[leftofthedial]

1. Maybe we should elect all the followers instead

are you advocating anarchy?

[mopaul]

4. me and socrates

watching from the back of the cave are advocating turning our eyeballs inward to our brains and rethinking things. some would call it socialism, anarchy, radicalism, etc. but everything changes, and the current system needs a lot of changes.

[leftofthedial]

50. pure anarchy, like unregulated capitalism,

sounds like a recipe for despotism to me.

[MarLopez2]

52. Right on.

I'm not too keen on how he mixed up the democratic argument against what happened in Florida with an elitist appeal for an anarchic protectorate. The connection is fallacious and it bugs me. Peace.

[BJ]

2. Somebody has to do it.

I have a friend who's deeply involved in the county Democratic Party, president of his labor union, sits on the county conservation board and is a board member of the local Izaak Walton League.

I, on the other hand, would rather sit on my butt and bitch.

Both are needed in a democracy.

[AlCzervik]

3. We need term limits.

That would help alot and then maybe these douchebags won't be beholden to their backers.

[cheezus]

17. yes, because democracy is not letting people vote for who they want

stupid voters, trying to choose their own leaders.

[JCMach1]

21. doesn't work,,, you lose your best people and the special

interest ARE THE ONLY ONES left in the game.

Take a look at what happened in the Florida Legislature as a case study.

Dominated by progressive moderate democrats and a succession of like-minded goverors from the 70's-90's, Florida progressed to become one of the most open and progressive states in terms of government, education, etc.

Fast forward to what has happened since term limits came in... Republicans now completely dominate state politics and the special interests rule. Virtually ever legislator is a creature of special interest money. They CONTROL who gets elected.

Trust me I know... I ran for the Florida Legislature.

[terrya]

5. A person to project your feelings of anger or pleasure at the direction...

the country is going. It's as simple as a good guy or a villain, I think.

We could, theoretically, have just the Cabinet running the country. But a group of people isn't quite the same, in terms of inspiring passions, as one man or one woman.

I hope this makes some sense. I've only had one cup of coffee so far, and I just got up. :-)

[blackmoonlillith]

6. The problem as I see it is...

our elected officials are supposed to represent us. For whatever reason, we seem to see politicians as leaders instead of representatives. Bush and his thugs had an agenda and have stuck to it no matter what the people think. I think this is what I loathe most about them. When did our representatives forget about us and set agendas. It's obvious that they worked on the ME agenda for years. Did they let us in on it? When the American people begin to realize that politicians are supposed to represent us not lead us, then you'll see changes in this country like never before. I've heard many people claim that we should stay out of the governments affairs because they know more than we do so surely they know better what to do than we do. This totally goes against a government which is supposed to represent us.

[not systems]

7. I think it is a monarchist hangover.

Give it a thousand years or so and people will come to their senses.

An amendment to abolish the office of executive would probably
do more to protect the rule of law that any other single action.

It seems to institute a dictatorship according to the
"legal" opinions of its current resident.

Abolish of this position may be the only way to prevent
Bonapartism in the country.

[mopaul]

8. ron and nancy brought back the monarchy thing

full throttle. there is something to it. we elect these people who don't do anything but talk, travel, eat for free, don't pay taxes, and live in baronial splendor. we allow them to waste millions on innaugaral balls, and reagan's funeral cost US over a billion.

[salib]

10. Well, this country did not have a president

Until we became the "United States". One could probably reasonably argue that it was the "neo-cons" of that day, otherwise known as the Federalists, that wanted a strong executive, i.e. President. History books (intro level) generally describe the original confederacy as dysfunctional at best, but what was created to replace it was probably most notable as just short of a budding empire.

Personally, I have always been offended by the "lead, follow or get out of the way" type of mindless logic. But, it is well ingrained.

However, I do not think that the alternative to leadership is anarchy. One can have rule of law, mores, advisory councils, peers, without requiring "leaders" and "followers." Just need question assumptions and expand definitions.

[BeFree]

9. At least we get to vote!

And if Bev Harris, et al, get the computer voting straightened up and flying left^tm the whole way we are represented will change.

At least the system we have now is a step up from a monarchy. Our problem today is that it is wanna-be monarchs who are in power. We need Democrats!

[Monte Carlo]

11. I think anarchy is very unstable.

Let's just assume for a second that you are talking about something similar to what Karl Marx wrote about, which is not a bad thing. Despite the hype, he idealized a world where everybody took care of themselves, where the state eventually became obsolete and withered away. It's suprisingly libertarian.

Let's say there is a world like this, without politicians, without parties, without elections, etc. It's my belief, that human nature, or at least that of a few ambitious ones, tends to upset this balance. All it takes is one motivated individual to start taking over, and others must band together in response or submit.

From institutions as rigid as the military, to even groups living outside the law like the mob, have their leaders that they look to. I think it is because it provides stability - the alternative is not stable.

[Ready4Change]

12. Seems silly? Compared to what?

Are you suggesting some other method of "creating" leaders, or some form of leaderless organization? Or are you promoting some idealized form of anarchy?

[Doctor Smith]

15. We already live mostly in anarchy.

People don't really know what the laws are in general. (It would be impossible to know them all anyway; there are too many of them, and they change constantly.) They mostly live their lives using a general sense of what is right and wrong, and how others around them do things.

[salib]

19. Again

I do not think that eliminating leadership is the same thing as eliminating government. One can have order, laws, customs, precedent, etc., all without "leaders." Leading assumes following. That is a medieval concept that we have adopted. Question the assumptions a little and one might find some insight, even so transcendent thought.

[smirkymonkey]

27. I completely agree with both your posts.

We have to get beyond the limited perspective that the opposite of our hierarchal government with a "supreme" leader is anarchy. It's not that black and white.

I have always felt that this type of organization in western society, whether in government, industry or society, stems from the organization of the early church. We are so indoctrinated that it is the way things "are", many of us cannot contemplate any other arrangement.

Under the current system, there is too much corruption which I believe comes from a structure that encourages the lust for power. I think a system that looks more like a flat org. chart w/ checks and balances built in and limitations on terms of service would eliminate many of the problems we have under the current system. We aren't ready for it yet, but eventually I think something like it will evolve upon the collapse of our current paradigm.

[Ready4Change]

38. Again, complaints without providing alternatives.

It's fine to not like leadership, either the leadership of one person in particular, or the broad concept of leadership itself. However I still don't see anyone promoting any idea of what is to replace the concept of leadership if we were to abolish it.

Also, for whatever concept is used to replace leadership, how is that concept going to avoid the re-emergence of "leaders?" They don't come from "religious doctrine", they come from human nature. (However much religion may take advantage of the effect.)

As an example, next time you're in any group of people, watch to see what happens when someone says "I'm hungry, lets go eat somewhere." You'll see a few people emerge as those who can influence the others to move in a direction on that day. Hang with those people for a while, and over time you'll see a couple people exherting their influence over and over. That's leadership emerging.

[smirkymonkey]

43. First of all, I'm not complaining,

just observing. Secondly, you didn't read my post - I did put forth an alternative idea, not a theory or model, but an idea.

Also, I am a member of an organization that functions in this way, no one person can gain power in the traditional way. Some people are more influential by virtue of their personal charisma and leadership roles rotate and are decided upon via election. It works. It's not without problems, but it works. The welfare of the group comes before the ambitions of any one individual.

Continue reading posts in this thread and maybe you will gain an alternative understanding of power structures.

[qwertyMike]

25. Leaders in any group, "emerge"

Cream rises

[Ready4Change]

35. Cream does rise. So does scum.

:)

[shimmergal]

13. I think feminist political theory has examined this question

in some depth.

However, I don't have citations. Anybody else?

[cosmicdot]

14. we need leaders; not pseudo-leaders

Shrubya ... self-expanatory ... nuf'said

... and, the system - designed, organized and control by the good ol'boys and Diebold - is much like the system which promotes pseudo-leadership in corporations ... once in power, the good ol'boys persevere and maintain their control/power by making sure no real leaders emerge ... a process, in and of itself, though some may have short-term appearances of success, has long-term diminishing returns ... which affect the have-nots more than anyone else ... the good ol'boys just huddle and re-organize somewhere else, leaving in their wake, the victims and the abused, just about everyone not fitting in the good ol'boy (who cares about the Founding Principles only their own profiteering) mold ...

how to level the playing field requires everyone's input and energy; how to obtain parity in the system ...

-- get corporations out of politics, here and abroad
-- reform how campaigns are financed and ran
-- the media is just a mess
-- finding ways to reconcile any 'issues' existing between politician financial investments and conflicts of interest
-- what to do with lobbyists?
-- what to do with 501(3)(c) tax-exempt think tanks and their influence on 'the system' (the Heritage Foundation, Council on Foreign Relations, Council on National Policy, American Enterprise Institute, the Herbert Hoover Institute, the Manhattan Institute)
-- reforming visibility into private equity investment firms like the Carlyle Group
-- getting issues not belonging in the political system, back into the personal, individual lives of a free people
-- review and study the litmus tests given to anyone considering a run for public office ... why not eliminate our best before they even have a chance???
-- other ... just brainstorming here ...

on the other hand, Nixon was adopted by the good ol'boys and advanced through the system despite not having some of the control systems the good ol'boys have in place today -- money, though, seems to be a common denominator ... the use of fear and intimidation ... basically, the political 'backroom-all-white-male' machine was in a different form in those days ... Poppy Bush got his leg up in the system with an CIA job, and was there when Bay of Pigs was planned despite the disinformation ... Poppy didn't need 'the people' to advance ... he had only held a Congress seat representing one district in Texas for a term or two ...he worked the system to his advantage ... a system 'the people' have little say in ... Reagan was tapped by the fatcats and he advanced through the system, too

what can be done to challenge that method of "democracy"???

JFK, RFK would likely fit the mold of leaders ... Paul Wellstone was fitting the role ... JFK, Jr., would have ... ... ... ... ...

hmmmm .... somebody, some thing ... doesn't want real leaders to emerge

- show up when the candidates come to town
- ask them what have they done for us lately
- demonstrate your angst and disappointment
- ask them how we can get the corruption out of politics and our lives
- ask them what corporations they have investments in now, and over the term of their tenure; ask about certain companies by name ... go prepared with info from opensecrets.org and other resources
- ask what corporations have contributed to their campaigns past and present; and, have voting records on corporate issues at hand

[BeFree]

16. Emerging leaders

Yeah, Clinton snuck up on them, didn't he?
No wonder they were so pissed. Their carefully laid plans were set back eight years. Just imagine if Gore........

There is a vast conspiracy by conspirators made up of wanna-be monarchs. Always has been. They will make slaves of us all, only if we let them. So far we've allowed them to kill off our leaders. It's time we united to stop their evil plans.

[NashVegas]

34. It Cuts Across All Wakes of Society

One thing Ayn Rand did get right: there's a slew of people ready to block anyone with a real clue.

[Zomby Woof]

18. as Dylan once said

"Leaders need people more than people need leaders." (an interview, not a lyric)

[kentuck]

28. Don't follow leaders...watch the parking meters...

Dylan

[Zomby Woof]

42. I had that in mind!

But I felt his spoken comment deserved as much recognition. That Dylan... always good for mining quotes. :-)

[H2O Man]

20. Throughout pre-human and human history

the group (family/clan/tribe) has had what could be called "leaders." That brings up two obvious thoughts: (1) In an extended family unit (pre-industrial society) the leaders were selected/recognized based upon qualities that are very different than those used to select industrial & post-industrial societies' leaders. There are some exceptions, primarily found in the European nation/states. But the basic qualities found in leaders were age, discipline, and authority.

The advantages of age in hunter & gathering societies is pretty clear. Those of us who attend familiy reunions, be they picnics, weddings, or funerals, get a sense of this older pattern in human behavior.

Authority is also self-evident. While today it resides in the system, (which allows for abuse from the sneaky, cruel, jealous, vengeful, greedy, and lying snakes among us) as represented by County Office Buildings, the State Capitals, Washington, the supreme Court, and the cop pulling you over for speeding, it has not been that way for that long in human history. Authority has almost always been based upon the family/clan structure. (Social workers find this type of family the most difficult to work with!) The next type is charismatic authority, in the style of William Wallace, Malcolm X, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. (Systematic authority generally deals with this type of figure with a bullet.)

Now, (2), in a family, the only need for authority that most tribal folks recognized was to instill a sense of self-discipline. Thus, children had loose but very real forms of family-instilled authority, which was instilled not only by parents, but by grandparents, great aunts, uncles, etc. Yet once the person reached a point of SELF-DISCIPLINE, there was a ceremony -- of which our society has but faint echoes of -- which put that young person into adult society.

Thus, human beings do have the potential to not need any authority figures. There can be naturally recognized leaders (clearly the insanity of considering bush a "leader" is only possible in a limited type of society) based on family structure, self-discipline, and authority. There is some evidence that this concept could take hold in the United States. It is the only way, I might add, that we can save this country.

[ArkDem]

22. Yes, history has proven that leaders aren't needed in any

facet of life. Everyone should just do what they want. I would work out better for everyone.

[playahata1]

23. The question SHOULD be:

"HAVE THESE SO-CALLED 'LEADERS' EARNED THE RIGHT TO LEAD?"

Have they earned our trust, have they earned our respect, have they earned our willingness to vote them into office? So far, I'd say that -- despite the few conscientious ones in there -- they have either abused or abdicated our trust, respect, and willingness to vote for them.

[Jose Diablo]

24. I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do

So I leave it up to you.

The very first division into some form of 'government', or rather shall we say 'human organization' is to select that form of leadership. Most times, that selection is easy because coming from the law of the jungle to organization is brought about by the physically most powerful. Thus, hierarchy is born.

Questions as to why do we need 'leaders' can be answered simply by asking "Whats in it for me".

There is only one alternative to some form of leadership (government) and that would anarchy or every man for himself. Historically, you may notice anarchy never last for long and is only a result of the breakdown of government through natural disaster or the marching of armies passing through and consuming all the resources in the quest to get where the armies want to be.

The basic needs of humans for security have always caused people to organize into groups (gangs) for their mutual safety and wellbeing. You can only have organization if there is some form of leadership. That leadership can take many forms: judicial, representative and monarchy to name a few. There are many sub-forms to these three, but the need to organize is inherit to who and what we (as humans) are.

I remember a movie (B grade) about aliens coming to Earth and giving robots to humanity that were designed to form the government and thus maintain security. This is simply another way to say the first stage in organization is some way to establish 'law' and the enforcement of 'law' to the benefit of all the members of society.

To summarize: Why leaders? Leaders are what we want and need to survive in a hostile environment.

[blindpig]

26. we are hierarchal critters

But we don't have to be. The only thing that differentiates us from other critters is the ability to consciously change our behavior. I think it's safe to say that all of us have cannibals in our family tree if you go back far enough. Today this behavior is beyond the pall. Slavery was "normal" since the beginning of civilization yet it is abhorred almost universally today. We are capable of better. But I doubt we will.

[smirkymonkey]

29. Keep in mind that humanity is still

evolving and eventually our systems of organizing ourselves into groups will evolve as well.

Maybe not in our lifetime, but eventually there will be systems that most of us are incapable of contemplating in our current mindset. I think there will have to be if humanity is to survive. There is too much potential for complete annihilation under our current power structures.

[YIMA]

30. Then you're looking at anarchy...

....which has been touched on here.

No war but class war. No maps but topo maps.

Anarchy is a nice concept, but I don't believe it is practical. Basically you're talking about people working within collectives and decisions being made by ad hoc committees. It would work if everyone would agree that all jobs and tasks are the responsibility of everyone, would rid the world of legal tender, no hierarchy obviously, and agree that all prejudices must be put aside.

My biggest issue with it is that human nature dictates certain people have personality traits that cause others to be drawn to them. If the person(s) holding those traits wouldn't take advantage of such, then all would be well. But sooner or later someone will use these personality traits to their advantage, and before you know it a particular collective has a King or Queen, and then the whole process of hierarchy starts all over again.

[Cleita]

31. I have thought for a long time that we don't need authoritarian

leadership. It evolved from having kings. Kings evolved from tribal warrior chiefs. The tribe itself was ruled by a council of elders and elite, and in many cases much of the council were women as the men were off hunting or waging war someplace. Pre-colonial Polynesian societies were patterned like this with variations according to place and tribe.

I think we need to hire the best people in their field to run government by proven and solid principles, not ideology. How we select and hire these people though, I haven't really researched to find a working model, but I am sure other DUers have. I would be interested in what they have to say.

[Just Me]

32. Maybe we could elect "administrators" and scratch the "leader" thingy.

Each official would be responsible for administering the duties of each office and only a legislative body would have the power to change those duties.

Just a thought.

I don't even pretend to know the answer to what I consider the greatest danger to humanity: concentration of wealth and power.

It would seem, however, that watering down any form of power such that it is never held in a few hands would be a good idea.

I have enjoyed viewing other's thoughts on this thread!!! :bounce:

[Jose Diablo]

33. The founders of our country were well educated people

and very deep thinkers. There are some deep thinkers here on DU.

It would be good to have some historical background on the various way mankind has tried to organize.

A history forum would be interesting to hear what our very well educated historians can tell us about whats been done in the past, whats worked, what hasn't worked. Advantages and disadvantages of the various systems tried.

I personally think our American system although far from perfect is still the best, in theory. Right now, our system is under threat from a powerful executive backed by a mercantile council.

In the end, we the people will decide if we will allow them to prevail.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. A parliamentary system would be more democratic.

And, it would cause the parties to define themselves more, rather than the republicrat/dempublican mish-mosh we're now saddled with.

[devinsgram]

37. Good question.

Why can't we just have a senate and house of reps. Just think of all the money the country would save without a president (like Air Force One, presidential motorcades and whole lot more that is just a waste of money). I bet a lot more would get done.

[Cleita]

40. Rule by committee. It could work, but has any other society in

history tried it and was the outcome positive or negative?

[Jose Diablo]

41. "Why can't we just have a senate and house of reps"

I believe the founders thought a representative government was the best for formulating laws based on the needs of we the people. Thus congress.

Yet a democratic representative form of government is slow and cumbersome. It is difficult to arrive at consensus, sometimes even impossible. The government does need to operate on a day to day basis with decisiveness and speed, thus the need for an Executive or a form of King.

Therefore, an executive branch was also formed to deal with day to day functions and foreign governments.

The judiciary? Another topic and more complex.

The founders did considerable thinking when forming the foundation.

[loudsue]

39. I'm REALLY glad you brought this up, mopaul....

It's exactly the type of discussion DU provides a wonderful place for... to air ideas and feelings and requirements, and research and history.

Our system -- world wide -- of having VERY POWERFUL people heading up governments and controlling armies (controlling the armies is the KEY issue here, because how else could these governments enforce their will) is the issue everyone faces. The ones with the biggest weapons win. It's been that way since the first rock was thrown.

Humanity is evolving spiritually (NOT "religiously", mind you). Our spirits (our "higher minds") are far more capable of envisioning complex situations through more than two and three dimensions of awareness UNRELATED to mere tangible evidence, and that capability is growing. In other words, the IDEAS we are capable of embracing are more vast and far-reaching than anything we are tangibly attached to.

Case in point: BEFORE the Iraq war, millions...MILLIONS... of people ALL OVER THE WORLD hit the streets to protest this war. People whose lives would not even be remotely affected on a daily basis put their skulls on the (police) lines to protest this war. I saw this clearly as the "hundredth monkey" effect of a new global awareness.

Never before in the history of the world have people from all different countries united BEFORE a war to try to stop it.

The "regular people" of the world WANT world peace: NOT just for themselves, but also for a bunch of Iraqi men, women and children that none of us ever have met or ever will meet. And not just for the Iraqis, but for EVERYONE. This, my friends, is EVOLUTION of the human spirit, and acknowledgment that "what is done to the least of these, is done to me". <a little paraphrasing there>

It is the faulty empowerment and extension of "rights" by governments to the "legal" model known as the Corporation that allows corporations to become "little governments" of their own. And by relaxing controls (read: DEREGULATION!) on these "little governments" that treaties and alliances have been made that do NOT have the approval of the average person.

Corporations have become the bullies of citizens and governments the world over, and the BANKING corporations are the biggest, most dangerous, most powerful bullies of all. THEY are the ones that can "finance" the ARMIES (and they often finance on BOTH sides of a war), so they are the ones who rule. Banks use governments to do their bidding, though the relationship is so incestuous that, often, it is also the other way around.

There has to be a new world awareness concerning the forming of governments. And it needs to have built into it some method whereby the government cannot NOT represent the people who give it its power.

Maybe armies need to be outlawed across the globe, or be only allowed to be used within its own country to jail those citizens who think violence is an option...and ONLY to jail ONLY those citizens who think violence, or crime, is an option I don't know the answer here.

But I'm encouraged that the internet is providing a place for us to discuss it!

:kick::kick::kick:

[Jose Diablo]

44. It is inevitable that some form of world government will be formed

We cannot just allow the law of the jungle prevail in how each government relates to each other. Some form of overarching "World Power" will emerge. And this "World Power" will have the teeth to enforce its will.

The destruction of our habitat, theft of resources and general anarchy of world events require forming some world government.

It would be better, to make sure individual rights and basic decency are at the core of the "World Power", than to allow a few of our 'elites' to decide for us, whats best for us.

[loudsue]

45. Very thought-provoking. And scary.

At the rate things are going right now, I really fear what type of world government might be formed, since totalitarianism is on the rise in the money circles.

:kick::kick:

[Cleita]

46. I think this would be a bad idea.

The world government could be a wonderful paradisical one or it could be a fascist destructive one. This is why we need many nations for a balance of power. If power hunger and greedy individuals subject one nation under their rule, there will be other nations to keep a check on them and to accept refugees from the oppressive nations. A league of nations could oversee treaties between nations and isolate rogue states with embargoes and other such punitive measures until they are overthrown and more acceptable governments installed enabling them to join the league again. This is not a perfect solution but it's the best I can think of.

[Jose Diablo]

48. From what I can see

The United Nations is really powerless. It was made to be powerless.

At this point though, it is not the United Nations we are going to.

Notice how the nations are forming into 'regional' interests. Even to monetary systems: Dollar in NS America and Pacific Rim, Yuan in mainland Asia, Euro in Europe, middle east and Africa.

I kind of expect each of these regional interests to re-allign their military interests to form economic self-interest groups with maybe even some nations merging.

The results could form what we had in pre-WWII Europe. This leading into WWIII between the regions resulting in much death, but leading into a final form of a World Authority.

Its all speculation I know, but I doubt our poor old Earth can afford the nations as a form of governance for much longer. Nor can we as people paying taxes afford 4 levels to government. One level needs to be gone.

[markses]

47. No

"Leadership" is the last vestige of a dying sovereignty, a dying God. An executive should execute, not lead. Power comes from below.

[spanone]

49. We're still evolving.....give us a few more million years.

If we don't fuck it up totally, maybe we'll learn something.

[opihimoimoi]

51. Fits into the Big Picture of: How to Fuck Up A Nation 101.3390

101.2291 Implenting Leadership Selection System allowing Poor Performance in running the "Farm" and clinging to it despite negative results.

A Very good thread Man. Just luv it.

KICK