Wesley Clark- Leadership Is About Working With People (Boston Globe 1/1)

[KittyWampus]

Note: Have heard it said that there's no "Theme" connected to any of the Democratic Candidates yet. Clark has been quite focused on pointing out his "Leadership" and "Accountability" and anyone who hasn't grasped that hasn't paid him any attention whatsoever.

Implicit in this, is Clark's being Solution Oriented and Non-partisan although these need to be more pronounced in his campaign, IMO.


Leadership is about working with people
By Wesley Clark, 1/1/2004

Clark was asked how his military career prepared him, if at all, for a more domestic, political position.

"WHEN YOU'RE in the military, a lot of people think that it's about giving orders, but mostly it isn't. You start as a company commander, and you go to your first unit, you realize, even though you're the guy that signed the property book and you're responsible for the company, 100 people, $10 million worth of equipment, you go to the first sergeant your first day and say, `Top, what do you think we ought to be doing today?' I mean, it starts at that level, because you recognize that leadership is not about giving orders, it's about working with others, bringing out the best in the people who are working with you, developing their confidence, relying on their expertise, developing your own proficiency, technically . . . "It's as much of a family as you can make it. You know, you don't get anybody to come into the armed forces unless they want to be there. And they won't stay unless you persuade them that they want to stay. Sixty percent of the armed forces are married. And so if the wife doesn't want to stay, the soldier won't stay. So you're in the business of selling your organization to your own people. There's a lot of internal marketing, to put it in a business term, that has to be done. Unlike American corporations, where I've been on the boards of numerous of these corporations, and there's not pricing power for labor in today's market. But there is a pricing power, the analog of that, in the armed forces. Because when a person's enlistment period is up, they can leave. And they will if they don't like it.

"So the things I worried about were things like schooling, healthcare, housing -- cost of housing, quality of housing -- a time off for the soldiers to be with their families. We did things that would be unheard of in the American business community. For example, when I was a Division Commander at Fort Hood, Texas, I had 17 elementary, junior high, and two high schools I was responsible for. And when a student had a teacher's appointment, I gave the order that my soldiers would miss their duty to be with their child to go to that teacher's appointment."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/01/01/leadership_is_about_working

[imhotep]

1. Does this guy understand

what representative democracy is?
It is the opposite of everything he tries to twist about his "experience."
He only comprehends things in terms of business or military, neither which are progressive.

[OrAnarch]

2. To Clark supporters..

Regardless of whether you agree with this opinion of imhotep or not, to many progressives Clark symbolizes the regressive military establishment which they despise. He candidacy in itself is, to their perception, an extreme pandering to the right-wing ideaology, which requires military experiences as a prerequisite to patriotism. Despite his own policies and ideas, his experiences in the military which he campaigns on does create such a symbol that may lose as many progressive votes as it gains centrist/right votes. This is an obvious problem with his candidacy...on a symbolic perception level, such a campaign leaves behind the leftist base, opting for an appeal to ignorant voters, which are allready captured by the Bush regime.


You may obviously disagree with perceptions and symbols, thinking it contradicts his policies, which can be seen as nothing more than a facade. But nevertheless, they are there. And you are going to have a hard time convincing many progressives who percieve Clak in such a manner that he is true to his published policies; in their eyes (and mine), he spent 34 years making it easier for people like Bush to kill foreigners, while handing out contributions to such a machine in the form of orders (which are far from democratic propositions).

[OKNancy]

3. Fortunately

disdain for the military is a tiny minority of opinion, and given the choice of Bush, or a liberal, brilliant, caring man like Clark, I think most progressives would chose the latter...I do.

[OrAnarch]

5. For that minority...

Why pander to the majority on an issue so wrong, when you can instead teach them, pull them left, and create a more progressive America?


Like Pascal, you only have two live options, but such is fallacious in the modern world. For many idealistic progressives though, they may vote for a third party as to stand for what they believe in or to stand against that which they do not condone. In which case, you must replace such votes with right-wing or centrists to at least come out even, and why would they vote democrat, when they got the team of their life in charge now? I just feel reaching out and realigning the political specturm is a far more effective strategy.

[OKNancy]

7. You can't re-align what you don't have

There will be no realignment of the political spectrum as you see it because self-described progressives are a minority.

I remember two years ago when I first joined DU, I wrote my first rather naive post. The title was, "Liberal thought always wins in the end". I still think that, but it's hit a bump right at the moment. It is of utmost importance that the Democrats get rid of GWBush. For me, Clark is the perfect one to do that, plus I get an outstanding human being in the bargain.

[OrAnarch]

10. You can always re-align...

Please look at what the minority of radical extremist fundemntalist/capitalist did in the past few years. You can always pull people left to some extent rather than continue to produce candidates that will appeal to wherever the right has currently pulled the mainstream.

It most definately doesn't take a majority, just a voice, an outlet, and people standing for what they believe. Money is obviously an issue. :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. This is truth in what you say

Fortunately for Clark, and perhaps unfortunately for us, the specific more radical than merely progressive movement that you refer to is smaller than I personally would like it to be, and I have put in some of my own time trying to help it grow at the grass roots level through community based actions, demonstrations, and projects.

I am a strong Clark backer, and many of the other activists I have worked with in the past and present are surprisingly receptive to him. Now if you take that to mean that I am not a strong progressive voter, than the ranks of those whom you would include under that term would represent less than 2% of the public. I am not saying that most of those in my personal political networks currently back Clark, or view him highly, though again, a surprising number do. I'm saying that the vast majority of them would vote for Clark in 2004 against Bush if it came to that.

[OrAnarch]

13. You are strongly underestimating the minority's ability

to influence others with similar views and shift political climates in a particular environment. Obviously they cannot make everyone progressive, but can surely make a centrist lean left. Just look at what the minority counter movement has done...we live in scary times, and I advocate to change them, rather than pander to them.

But I do agree that such views is in minority. I jsut do not believe that that matters, nor do I believe it is permissable to ignore such because it is a minority when mainstream America is so far-right at the moment.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Actually I don't disagree with you

I think that is part of why it is such a fight for Clark, given his military background, to win the Democratic Party nomination against other Democratic Party candidates.

And I certainly do not ignore the minority you speak of. If you knew my life story, you would either consider me as belonging to that minority, or at the very least, being philosophically close enough that I would be one of those "with similar views" who you could attempt to make lean further left.

As a Clark volunteer, those are circles that I do travel in. It is also one of the reasons why I put time into posting on DU. I am a self identified Progressive for Clark who tends to defend him from the left, not from the right. I do not argue that he has the best possible world view and social economic priorities. I argue that he is surprisingly good on those counts, and the man most likely to halt the Bush regime. We disagree on points, but I believe honorably so. I have some tasks to do, so I might be absent from the board for awhile.

[Leilani]

19. Interesting

You always have thoughtful posts.

Clark recently said that if he ran as a military person in the Republican party nobody would think anything of it. He said he needs to convince Dems of his positions & to not reject him on his military background.

[Turkw]

28. So even a four star general can believe in progressive things, I mean he

has had former soldiers who were gay talk to him about their experiences as a American who wanted to serve their country but had to hide who they were. So maybe he is telling the truth when he talks about wanting sexual orientation not to be a limiting factor in serving. Sounds kind of progressive to me. So do several of his other positions.

[KC21304]

4. I really don't think Clark means to

bring representive democracy to the military, or to bring the military from of authority to every day life, do you ? :shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

9. yes I believe he means to bring the military form of authority to everyday

life. I have no other evidence to go on except his own inability to talk about life other than in military macho imagery.

[OrAnarch]

12. naaaaa....

I think hes just trying to appel to currently fascist America right now, although I admit a few things he says make me a little nervous.


IMHO, even if he won in such a polarized right-wing climate, I wouldn't care. Not the America I want to live in. I want someone to change such, before and after the election.

[Lefta Dissenter]

24. have you watched his town hall meetings

or read his policy statements at Clark04.com ?

I think you'll find that he is a VERY deep thinker - it goes way beyond the military.

I was surprised at myself for being so attracted to a military man as a candidate. I never would have imagined myself supporting a career military man as our president. But that was before I started learning about Clark. I first noticed him on CNN, when he was very clear about the fact that he thought that bush's decision to invade Iraq was wrong. I was impressed that a General would be speaking against the war. Since then, the more I've learned about him, the more I respect him and realize that there's so much more to him than 'just' his military background.

[Turkw]

29. Your signature line is a quote from Dean talking about fighting!?!

Military macho imagery there. I don't know, with the revolution stuff Dean says the streets will run red with blood of the oppressors if he is elected. On second thought, it is just words to help get his supporters excited- no harm or foul, neither is the language Clark uses.

Look at the policies he is campaigning on, some good stuff there.

[robbedvoter]

25. Clark on representative democracy:

Maher: Howard Dean said "...In Vermont, you know, politics is much
farther to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right
now." And then his campaign manager came out and said "That's not an
admission he's a liberal!" Which, quite frankly pissed me off. Somehow
they hijacked that word. And you're a Democrat, you said that last week.
Clark: Absolutely. (audience applause)
Maher: OK. I'm just wondering, of all the people who have the
credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could
get you to say that.
Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.
Maher: Good for you!
Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this
country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this...
this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was
the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss
the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck
by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People
who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they
believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose
that in this country. We've got to get it back.

[Turkw]

27. Yes, he had to convince elected officials to give money for schools-

He has dealt with elected officials from different countries and had to get them to agree, that has to be even harder, putting together an international coalition.

[Cheswick2.0]

8. He'd make a great military dictator

And when a student had a teacher's appointment, I gave the order that my soldiers would miss their duty to be with their child to go to that teacher's appointment."


Nice dictatorial attitude. :eyes:

I am sure he is a decent fellow, but his brain is too tied to the military and the military industrial complex for my taste.

[OrAnarch]

11. Even if he isn't

You percieve it to be so due to how he campaigns on this experience and interweves it so much into his speeches. Ultimately, perception, not reality, is the problem here. And hence, thats why, despite what this camp says about electability, think that Clark's appeal is far more limited than we are initially led to believe.

[BeyondGeography]

16. By extension, we brought 9/11 on ourselves

right? I mean, we are a militaristic, imperialistic capitalist hegemon, and the hatred that was directed at us on 9/11 by a spiritually motivated band of fundamentalists was well-earned. Right?

If you disagree with the above, than you have to admit that national security is a key issue in the 2004 campaign and we need to field a candidate with a credible defense and foreign policy background.

If you agree with the above, then I'm afraid your horizons are fixed on a point that most voters won't share in November and it will be four more years of Bush.

[OrAnarch]

21. I agree with such a statement but for different reasons...

The reactionary rebellion that is terrorism, spawned by a failure to establish global liberalism in exchange for imperialism, was a movement that started long before the United States was even a preconceived notion in the "founding fathers" heads. But with that said, this country's policies, and lack of some, are directly responsible in part for the latest rise of fundementalism within the last 50 years. In truth, we are not trully morally responsible for relieving the geopolitical position inflicted upon the middle eastern entities, although such a failure to do so will result in a typical counter movement that will, needless to say, create such a negative environment for our own citizens to live within. So sometimes "altrustic" actions, though not obligatory, are within the best intrest of an acting state, as to ensure an environment which is profittable and safe to exist within. Such actions our government failed to partake within because perhaps at the time they were deemed "not profitable". But waging a populist war, within any context, is the least profitable endevour they could have imagined.

Futhermore, beyond the failure to establish a global liberalistic policy with 3rd world nations, there has nevertheless been quite some imperialistic actions taken toward such regions in the name of economic gain, which in turn, shifts more of an opportunity at economic advancement away from such nations. There has been dirty dealings with the oil industry, sponsored coups, sponsored wars, political manipulation, etc. The list is truly endless. The United States has been not only neglecting such a region liberalistically, but also has taken a proactive role in the plight of such nations. We are so apt at propping up our allies and friends, whos resume consists only of being our enemies' enemy. This nation is not innocent nor simply reactionary in regards to the "War on Terror".

With that being said, the only "credible defense and foreign policy background" I want is someone truly committed to stopping terrorism, which cannot be done through militaristic means. That being, we need someone not committed to stopping the symptoms, but to eliminating the disease. By eliminating the environment which spawns terrorism, the populist revolt will be put to an end. But in part, this is because such a movement has succeeded; liberalism, from a global scale, must be put into place before any such progress can be made. We can never solve their geopolitical problems, but we can provide aid and incentive, cooperation and goodwill, and true help so that such nations can independently suceed at giving their citizens a better life how they choose to do it. We can eliminate our own incessive need to undermine their struggle to advance, not by putting aside our capitalistic desires, but by realizing it is far more profitable than waging such a war. Such a true "war on terrorism" requires not military experience or foreign policy experience in general, but a willing and cooperative personality of a manwho wishes to work in a compromising fashion for the most utilitarian solution. We do not need the military, but rather the Peace Corp.

A general, who has spent their life in an organization that stands as a representation now of American might and determination, whos position has been that of following orders and giving them to proliferate the growth of the military complex, who is at ease with such participation, is not going to represent to them, nor I, the person to bring this massive shift in American policy. The only "foreign policy" experience that is required is that of being a like minded person who truly cares for the world, and truly acts in the intrests of not America, but in the intrests of the globe. And by doing so, America can prosper the most, as we are not isolated from the global environment.

And although I agree that I may be "fixed on a point that most voters won't share in November", this is more than about November to me. Change the president a million times over, Democrat or Republican, but that alone will make no difference in the long run with our policies. We must finally reach out and change America, one mind at a time. We must teach people that our policies really do create such a world that is negative for us to live within eventually. To appeal to the current gung-ho patriotism gets us no where, and moves us no where closer to saftey and prosperity. To appeal to the militaristic sentiment doesn't change what America is at heart.

We will now and forever have terrorism, brought on by others and ourselves, until we can become a nation which realized what we do today, or fail to do, is most definately responsible for what we endure tommorrow, globally and domestically. We must teach them that liberalism within any context is the most cost-efficient, "right", and easy way to secure peace, happiness, prosperity for our posterity.

But alas, I guess its easier to just pander to the phrase: "They hate us for our freedom".

[OKNancy]

14. He does SOMETIMES speak in military terms

just as Dean says, when I was governor...etc.

Here is something I was just reading about Clark's ideas on Unions.
This sounds pretty Democratic to me:


Protecting workers' rights to bargain collectively for the greater good

The history of American economic progress is largely the story of laborers who banded together into unions, in order to bargain collectively for the dignity, respect, wages, and benefits they deserve. I understand the lessons that this history provides. And that is why standing up for workers and unions will be one of my highest priorities as president.

President Bush's record on labor is abysmal. He has taken every opportunity to weaken unions and set back the cause of workers' rights. As President, I'll take the important and long-overdue steps to assist American workers achieve better wages and benefits, access to health care, and a greater say in their working conditions. Here's what I'll do:


Raise the minimum wage.
The real value of the minimum wage has declined 25 percent since 1979. A living wage for all workers was the right idea back then, and it's the right idea now. I support raising the minimum wage - and ensuring that it keeps pace with the cost of living in the future.

Empower workers to organize.
As president I'll push for a "card check" law, requiring employers to recognize unions once a majority of workers have indicated their intent to unionize.

End union-busting.
Harassment, intimidation, and firing of would-be organizers is, unfortunately, not yet a relic of the 1930s. It happens today. My administration will be vigilant in identifying and prosecuting such illegal activity.

Retain Federal wage provisions for workers.
The government should set a good example for all employers by paying fair wages and benefits. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that federal contractors pay their workers local prevailing wages. The historic Fair Labor Standards Act solidified legal protection for overtime pay. As President, I'll protect these vital safeguards from those who want to dismantle them.

Protect workers on the job.
The Bush Administration has instructed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to ease penalties on employers who expose their workers to hazards on the job. Bush has also attempted to cut funding for OSHA, which employs fewer inspectors now than it did in 1980. These reckless policies put all workers at risk. I support stiff penalties for employers who violate the law, and increased funding for OSHA and its companion research agency. And I'll replace the Bush Administration's weak, voluntary ergonomics standards with real, enforceable rules that protect the health of American workers.

Promote free and fair trade.
Trade has the potential to raise living standards both here and abroad, but we must ensure that the terms of trade are fair, and that we are competing on an equal playing field. Labor rights are human rights, and I'll treat them that way -- internationally-recognized core labor standards must be central elements of all new trade agreements. We must also improve our enforcement of labor provisions in existing agreements. Finally, we must be vigilant in our approach to unfair practices outside of the treaty context. For example, Bush has failed to prevent China from manipulating its currency, hurting American workers. As President, I'll do better.

Increase access to health care.
My health care plan provides every single American with affordable access to health care. The plan reduces premiums for many who already have insurance through a system of tax credits. For workers without employee-sponsored health care, I also propose a new, low-cost insurance option: access to the same federal health care plan provided to members of Congress.

[KC21304]

26. How silly. He was teaching at a military academy for god's sake.

Don't you give him credit for teaching his students about priorities ?

[Donna Zen]

15. Oh my...a positive thread

Notice how quickly one can move from the concept of "leadership" to absolute dictatorship. Fact? We don't need no fucking facts. If we say it is so...then so be it!

Ann Coulter does this for the rightwing, so have at it.

Anyway, thanks for posting the article. And yes, the party can broaden the base under Clark. He is a liberal and believes in civilian leadership and enlightened democracy.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Right on, DZ

Wes is this party's ticket out of the cultural wilderness. Most Americans agree with the Democratic Party on pocketbook issues, they just get bogged down on our supposed indifference to God and Country, which is relentlessly exploited by the right. Wes takes these weapons away. We're lucky to have him.

[lurk_no_more]

23. You noticed this too huh?

Notice how quickly one can move from the concept of "leadership" to absolute dictatorship

Some folks find it so convient to take out of context just what they want in order to try and make their point, of course to point this out to them only gives them the desired effect their looking for.


” JAFO”

[MIMStigator]

20. good article about a candidate with foreign policy experience

eom

[maddezmom]

22. thanks for posting

nice positive article.... :)