A 2014 Pew Research Center survey
on the traits of good leaders indicated, in descending order, that “it
is absolutely essential for a leader to be honest, intelligent and
decisive — as well as organized, compassionate, innovative and
ambitious.”
At face value, this is a credible list of traits.
Yet, too often it appears the
presidential debates degenerate to the lowest common denominators of a
male understanding of leadership — such as toughness, aggressiveness and
strength — not the traits from the Pew survey. Often, the candidates,
regardless of gender, try to outdo one another, much like overreaching
adolescent males seeking to assert their uncertain manhood.
More so, the grandiosity, the
brashness, the arrogance and the unfettered narcissism of several of the
candidates have been striking. It has been said that seeking the
presidency is diagnosable. After all, given the unfathomable demands of
the job, what type of person would think they have what it takes to do
it?
At the core of narcissism is the
inability to be present to and aware of the other. The self, and service
of the self, is all that matters.
Not surprisingly, the remarks of
several of the candidates have appeared to be remarkably tone-deaf in
regard to the concerns of the others.
Many of these remarks have pandered to and exploited fear. This fear, unfortunately, is not without precedent. Nevertheless, where is their
sense of mercy for those displaced by terrorism, civil war, poverty and
environmental disasters? Where is their sense of compassion?
As happens so often, New York Times columnist David Brooks swooped in later in the week and swiped Craig's theme in a wonderful piece titled The Brutalism of Ted Cruz.
What do you think? Are Anderson and Brooks right?
As happens so often, New York Times columnist David Brooks swooped in later in the week and swiped Craig's theme in a wonderful piece titled The Brutalism of Ted Cruz.
What do you think? Are Anderson and Brooks right?
