dalem

Which people? Which suggestions? Where? I need specifics to answer well.

That said, there is an element of, oh, trust, that goes along with good and effective leadership.

-dale

sirpuddingfoot

Well, we could start with the man himself. I'll just point you to one of my old posts.

With regard to the "element of trust," I don't believe many people are very "trusting" of the man anymore, though perhaps this could change.

Dwarven Pirate

So,Dalem, if trust has evaporated, does that mean the leadership is neither good or effective?

A discussion of loyalty has to be defined by what one is trying to be loyal to. "Loyal to America" might to some mean that they support all actions of the government. To others it might mean that they support the law of the land. To still others it might mean that they support foremost the populace, even when that sets them against the both the law and the lawmakers.

A man fighting in Vietnam, a man voting to cease or to extend the war in Vietnam, a man protesting the war in Vietnam. All loyal to America.

dalem

Oh dear, we're not going to go there again are we?

Granted. But my point is that that trust was denied reflexively by many people right from the start. I mean, even in basic areas like intel. People actually believe that they are operating with more information than the frikkin' President?

When you accept someone as the leader, you have to be willing to run around the corner and shout "booga booga!" when he tells you to. If you're not, then you are NOT part of the team.

Many people refused to be part of the team from Day 1, for no reason other than personal selfishness and arrogance. This has hurt the country terribly. This kind of behavior was reborn (as far as I'm aware) under Clinton first, but it was relatively fringey and he never really had the kind of national crisis situation that made it detrimental. It's current manifestation, most notably as BDS, is truly deplorable, and not a little bit embarrassing to those who engage in it. I have a few friends who I simply ask to shut up when they launch into some antiBush clause, as if it's axiomatic that everything he's done is bad and wrong. I refuse to tolerate such tripe, and people drop in my personal estimation when I hear it. It does not reflect well on a person's intellect or character, to be blunt.

-dale

dalem

It certainly takes a hit, yes. Although I wouldn't say it has evaporated. It's much less than it should be.

-dale

sirpuddingfoot

I was only going here to bring to light the issue: namely that if you accept the truism of Schurz, then it would seem necessary that, by extension, you can accept that I can "be part of the team" and disagree. The items in the linked post represent a false dichotomy: a grey area within; there can be more than a single "right" and a single "wrong."

The nature of democracy is such that the leader is both checked and balanced against forcing people to "run around the corner and shout 'booga booga' when he tells you to." If I had waived a number of my constitutionally guaranteed rights to say otherwise by joining the military, then I would not be able to disagree. But I am not a soldier, and this is not a military dictatorship; I am not forced to act on command. My loyalty to the country is not tied to my support of the elected officials. My refusal to be "part of the team" need have nothing to do with "personal selfishness and arrogance" even if I do not like the current administration.

While I make no claim to have "more information than the frikkin' president," I also have little reason to maintain more than a very small amount of trust in him. For instance: while I fail to maintain trust in his mental capability to make difficult decisions logically, I still trust that he is not stupid enough to "nuke" anyone, be it Tehran or Chicago. He could have elicited more "trust" by simply making the effort to speak cogently. His failure to do so on so many occasions and his flippant dismissal of concerns regarding his action, even so far as to say because "I'm the president" as if that is justification enough for decision, gives me, for one, cause for "concern" to put it lightly. If war is, as most people see it, the last resort, the justification must be such that to fail to declare war must necessarily be an indefensible position. The threat must be imminent and unmistakable. Mistakes cannot be rationalized if we are to maintain this guise of "trust". The man himself went "so far" as to admit that "mistakes were made" as if we should accept fallibility. The pretentiousness of such an act is inexcusable and disgusting in the extreme. I cannot trust him, not now, not ever.

I cannot accept the position that "to be willing to run around the corner and shout "booga booga!" when he tells you to" when "right" does not line up with it is anything other than dumbheaded flagwaving, and is itself unpatriotic because it represents the opposite of the element of concern for "rightness" in Schurz's truism.