We spend about 1/3 of our life sleeping if we get the traditional 8 hours. Some might consider those hours to be only about our body resting, but they can be beneficial for working through problems. We can plant both intentions and ideas to consider before we go to sleep. It's why it's good to take those moments right at waking to see if anything came from our subconscious.
Yesterday morning my thinking was on politics and in particular the issue of youth in leadership. Many say that Barack Obama at 46 is too young to lead this country. The argument goes: Give him more years in DC to see how things are done and then he'll be ready.
John McCain, for obvious reasons, is hoping to make that case to the American people. He has been in DC a long time. He knows all the ropes and he claims he can reform the system. McCain said it Tuesday night that reform is what we need, not change. Just add on more layers, tweak what has been done, eliminate some government programs (most especially if they benefit the poor), and absolutely, we can have everything working like clockwork.
What I woke up thinking was about the great leaders of the past and what ages were they when they took power and changed the world of their time. We all know about Alexander the Great being only 30 something when he died and had already conquered an empire by then. When I got up, I looked for the ages of a few others.
Napoleon took over as absolute leader of France at 35. Genghis Khan united his world and came into power at 44. Julius Caesar had conquered the known world, completely changing Roman power by the time he was killed at 55. George Washington was 43 when he was given command of the Continental Army to fight the Revolutionary War for the next 6 years. Abraham Lincoln began his presidency and managing the Civil War at 52. At 28 Mao-tse-tung was one of the founding members of the Communist party in China beginning a philosophy and process that would completely overturn a government by the time he reached 57.
In the corporate world most of the current corporate heads are in their 50s but many got their inventive ideas much younger and some current technical empires were begun by men in their 20s who looked at what might be not just at what had been.
Some years back I read a book about how it required one generation dying off for new ideas to really take hold. The writer was referring to ideas we would take for granted today (most of us), like that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.
In short young men have done a lot of world changing. Not to say old men cannot but youth is no reason to prejudge that a man can't manage a country or an army. It is more about judgment, the strength of their goals, sense of who they are, ability to work with and lead others, and whether they are willing to question how things have been, changing them completely if they aren't working.
Being old does not mean someone cannot be open to change; but being young and outside the system could mean they are not as locked into protecting the status quo. It might be when they are told it's always been this way and it always will be that they are not so apt to bow their head and give up.
When John McCain talks about reform, it's taking the existing system and rearranging it or frosting it. Can he think outside the box, come up with new paradigms for making our system work from the bottom up. That is something you don't hear much about from Republicans who prefer to start from the top and hope it trickles to the bottom. Democrats believe that what trickles down isn't what you want on you.
Obama said the other night that it's time to make our country work from the bottom up. That struck a chord with me. It might be the biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans. Where do you start to fix the problems?
There might be valid reasons for people to not like Obama's policy ideas, just as there are valid reasons to agree with them, but one of the reasons to not vote for him should not be his age. That could be a plus. It's not that McCain is necessarily too old but more that he might be too invested in protecting the existing system to really make a difference. I believe a difference is what we need now.
***********
For fun, check out this conversation with Andrew Sullivan on some current political thinking: Conversation around a table that isn't there.
28 comments:
It's funny, I never think about age when I consider someone for office. I do think about experience, temperament, ideas and ideals, communication skills, leadership ability, honesty, enthusiasm, willingness to hear and understand both sides of an issue, direction, passion, and intelligence. Given that list, it's easy to pick the right person for the job. Age is so over-rated!
I like that Obama is young and fresh. He might be a little too young to be president, but I would say early 50's is a perfect age. I normally do not care for super old presidents or politicians for that matter. Look at Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy. We appear to appoint some of these people for life. It kind of reminds me of the old Soviet Union with the old guys standing in the reviewing box as the parade of tanks goes by.
I just hope that Obama has some fresh ideas. I am concerned that he will just offer up more of the same old liberal plans from the 1960's. We have spent something like 60 trillion dollars on the war on poverty and the bottom up policies and the poverty level is still about the same. I think that is the difference between conservatives and liberals. The conservatives believe that if you get out of the way of commerce then more people will be employed and more people will have more money to spend which helps everybody have a better quality of life. This was proven under Ronald Reagan, when more millionaires were created than in any other time in our countries history. The economy recovered from the malaise it had been in.
That is an urban legend about Ronald Reagan and that republicans get out of the way of commerce. That might be a logical stance for conservatives to have but republicans have long since given up any credentials for being conservatives. They give benefits to corporations at the expense of the working people.
Throwing money at problems doesn't help. Johnson proved that, but it is still right that if we don't deal with poverty, with the working poor, with the middle class who are being hard hit with the current economic policies, it won't make us a stronger country. I said it before and still believe it that citizens will pay one way or another. It's only a question of whether corporations get the profits for the benefit of the top echelons or whether it goes into infrastructure that benefits everyone. Taxes aren't bad if they are wisely used...
and Reagan didn't cut taxes for everybody. I was in the group back then who paid more because of eliminating one of the main deductions of the working family-- interest deductions. Someday the truth of what Reagan did will come out, but it won't be while he's still being hero worshiped or while people still feel pity for him because of his sad end. I don't believe he was a bad man but more that he believed in a simplistic answer to complex problems. Libertarians say they believe in getting government out of the way but even they don't really if you read their actual ideas. And Republicans love government when it suits them.
You are forgetting another thing that really got rolling under Reagan and that is the 401k. So those terrible corporate profits that you are referring to, now go to most Americans. Not just the top echelon.
you must be kidding. the interest rates on a 401k don't remotely match the corporate head percentages of whatever profit there is. It also is a way to make all Americans overlook possibly poor economic policies in hopes that the pensions, which they used to have but don't, will not be totally gone with the stock market should it crash. There was at one time some level of security in terms of guaranteed pensions. That no longer exists unless you happen to work for the government itself. Interesting, huh!
With the way state and local governments are filing bankruptcy and financially collapsing and the way that Social Security is going broke I don't think there is even true security in any pension whether government or private. Especially since the government makes the laws, they can change them at any time to do what they want. If a private company treated its employees like some government employees are treated the politicians would be screaming. I have more faith in my 401k, which I maintain separate from my pension, than in any other investment, because it is my money and I have some control over where it is invested. This is what W wanted to do with a small percentage of Social Security. He wanted to take a tiny bit of the monthly contribution and let the employee decide how to invest it. The employee would have received a much larger return on his contribution and it would have been the employees money so the Congress could not use it for other purposes. And it would have helped save Social Security from going broke. But the Congress decided to do nothing and let the current system go broke so we may get nothing back from all the money we have contributed during our working lives.
Since the government has been stealing er borrowing the money that has been put in it for so many years, there is no trust fund which was the argument that was put forth when the SS tax was raised. If they had invested the money that was in that trust fund, it would also not have been a problem.
Did you really believe that allowing people to put a couple percentage points of the current SS tax into a private account just for them would solve the problem? Did you not understand that the deal all along was that the younger generation would pay for the older generations and if you stop the younger generations paying, how would that work? What did you think Bush planned for the current seniors who need that money to pay their bills? It might help the younger ones to have something when they get there but it won't solve the problem right now or even for them long term since it was such a small amount. It was more of a placebo. Sounds good but does nothing for the real problem.
What most Democrats believed (probably most Republicans too) is that Bush wanted to end SS. It's what he said should be done when he was in college. He never wanted to save it. He wanted to gut it. That's why Democrats didn't trust him. The man lied us into a war that is running us trillions in cost and billions into debt not to mention the lost life and damaged bodies and psyches. With that, you would trust him with our elders security funds?
People don't go onto full SS until they are in their late 60s. They pay tax on it if they earn over a certain amount. My husband and I have yet to take SS but will have to do it sometime before he reaches 70. A lot of people don't live much older than that if they live to that age. You are buying a typical Republican load of trash to solely blame the democrats for this problem.
Very interesting post, Rain. John McCain is two years older than I am and is obviously a very bright man, but I know that my energy level is not what it used to be. I don't even know how in the heck he can do the campaign shtick.
As for Obama, I think 46 is a nice age--wisdom seeping in through experience, but not yet burned out or slowing down.
Just for the record. I was not blaming Dems for the Social Security mess. I was blaming Congress which includes both parties. They all want to put off any tough or controversial decisions. I think the small percentage would have helped more than doing nothing which is what we got from Congress. And it would have pumped more money into Wall Street which could use it right now.
Speaking of being taxed have you seen the stuff going around about Olberman owing back taxes. It sounds like it is not that big of a deal to me. But I don't care for his self important holier than thou attitude. So it is fun to watch him get lambasted for not doing what he thinks the rest of us need to do more of.
Republicans and Democrats did spend the SS Trust Fund, but in the 7 years of Republican presidency and most of those years total or nearly total control by Republican Congress, they have spent more of it than was being spent during the Clinton years with a Republican Congress.
Congress has been controlled mostly by Republicans (enough even now to stop any attempt to override a presidential veto) the money has gone out in droves and mostly to the richest among us, those who contribute to the Republican party, the lobbyists, in big corporate contracts with in the case of Iraq no bid.
Your idea that we could solve the SS problem of the elderly poor by pouring money into Wall Street, so that those who already buy Mercedes can afford to get the latest year, simply amazes me; but it is that issue I mentioned earlier. Do we fix problems from the top down or the bottom up.
Whatever you like to think of yourself politically, you constantly look for the top guys to get more money. Now that might be nice for the top guys, but you are not actually among them, are you? You are a guy who works hard for his living and makes enough to live well but not rich; so why defend the ones who are way above your scale? Do you think that will somehow help this country to have more second and third homes, more billionaires?
How does it help you, as a young person worried he might not get SS by the time you get there, for Wall Street guys (where the ones in trouble were often those playing fast and loose with funds to make more money than you will ever dream of) to get SS money?
To me that was exactly what I didn't like about the system Bush suggested. He wanted to once again help the better off. Instead of SS being administered by a government agency with low costs attached, the funds would become more diversely accounted, and more money would be thrown to who knows who. Profits would be harder to assess.
Frankly Bush's plan was never to benefit younger,working people who can now invest in 401K if they want. It was always to hurt the existing elderly population who some depend totally on SS for their food. It was cruel and heartless frankly-- but then when it's about money, emotions aren't a factor, are the?
Except emotions are for some of us. How can someone, including you, not be furious when there are fast, often no-bid contracts given with no liability to Bush Cheney 'friends'. Those contracts have gone out anywhere there is a chance to make a lot of money even after Katrina. The one that most makes me grind my teeth is in Iraq where they built buildings for the troops, with showers that have electrocuted too many of them. There is no justification for that and it happened again recently. This is all about greed and incompetency with too many people, from the top down, not caring about the people they put in harm's way for their own secret motives but in the end, it's all about profit. Worse they tried to blame those soldiers for their own deaths claiming they did it to themselves on purpose. So the people who have signed up, who believe in the cause for which they were told they were fighting, are thrown under the bus and who cares? AND you ask why we wouldn't trust Bush to manage SS to make it work for those who depend on it???
It doesn't relate to this topic but in case anyone is not up to speed on this issue of soldiers being electrocuted, here is one of the articles explaining it: NY Times
I read about the soldiers being electrocuted because of shoddy contractors a while ago. That just makes my blood boil. I think that is something that we all agree on that we should be getting what we pay for and there should be zero tolerance for shoddy work when it comes to providing for our soldiers. The contractors are being very well paid to do a job and to cheat the system is just sick.
I will address your long comment another time, when I have more time.
I would consider the prevalent life expectancy during most of the eras presented.
It is interesting that women seem to be completely ignored in this piece. What of us?
Cop Car
I would personally see women as like men for their qualities at any age. I don't have a belief, like some, that women are more gentle and kinder leaders nor would they be weaker. Women are humans and in the end, I think, they govern like any human.
The problem with thinking of female leaders, who changed the world, and there have been some women leaders, is that most came to power because of their marriages or dynasties. It's not that they cannot be judged for their leadership abilities anyway, but like with Queen Elizabeth, who became queen at 25, they had quite a system around themselves already, weren't building a kingdom but did use it or not wisely. Cleopatra became a joint monarch through the family at 17 and ruled with various co-monarchs and solely for 21 years.
There have been political leaders in our era who have been female like Indira Gandhi and I went looking for her age after you mentioned this. She was 49 when she was elected India's prime minister but she did get there because of her father.
Golda Meir got there on her own as best I know it when she was 71. Likewise Margaret Thatcher who was 54 when she became Prime Minister. (I didn't know their ages but looked them up.
Hillary, at 61, has gotten the closest in this country but does anyone think she would have gotten there without being married to Bill and for many, even today, they voted for her because they thought he'd be there helping her. Was that a fair belief? who knows but when he ran, he said you'd get two for one; so I would guess they have been a team all along.
It's frustrating that women are so often kept from power positions. Think of great women artists and you come up with very few names and that's not because women aren't talented in the arts. Even in corporations, the few female heads have most often gotten there because of daddy or marriage. I don't believe this has anything to do with women's abilities but more male dominance for so long which is in some places going down for the last gasp-- maybe.
This could make an interest topic for someone to research all on its own, cop car. Not that I will likely do it but the question of women in leadership. The mythical Amazons were all female but in general it's been a patriarchy in our history-- although mythology might offer more possibilities to consider...
I really found the video interesting. It gave me a moment of pause but I don't see Obama as another Kennedy.
And I don't consider age. I do consider experience heavily. Neither Hillary nor Obama have enough experience. Conversely,
McCain is too much of an insider and probably on the take with the lobbyists.
It's a conundrum and I am still completely undecided unless you count my inclination to vote NO!
It's a lead pipe cinch that no matter who gets elected, my life will not improve. Nor will the lives of most people in this country.
Leaders could make our lives better. Bush has certainly at the least been president during a time that it got a lot worse for everybody but the wealthiest. I don't know if that will happen now or not given we have such a system entrenched right now. It'll take major pain to uproot it. Will Americans stand for that? The existing power structure has pretty much controlled the media. It would take people getting their information a different way to change things and the internet is rife with lies and people who use it to plant mistruths to get people riled up. It is definitely an 'interesting' time. :)
I think most consider Obama to be like a Kennedy only in his ability to inspire people, but he came from the bottom at least economically and worked his way up while the Kennedys were already on the top. I don't see Obama as a Kennedy at all myself (and didn't vote for Bobby in Oregon's '98 primary).
It doesn't relate to the age topic but does relate to women in power. I didn't watch Hillary's speech today but read it was good-- one of her higher moments. I have felt that Obama will have to pick who he thinks can govern best with him. If that happens to be Hillary, he will still get my vote-- although I'd rather see it be Richardson. The next few months will tell if it's significant that although she conceded, she didn't release her delegates. Is this really over?
I expect Obama's first speech as president will be the same kind of unifying speech that JF Kennedy delivered. Both come from a monority heritage and overcome the obsticals of prejudice. This gives them the inspiration factor. In his first speech Kennedy directed us as a nation to be the first to put man on the moon. He called for educational system to equip us with scientific skills. Science education and fruits have benefited us and challenged us and for the better.
Another thing he said was "Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country." words like these have more meaning coming from a person born to a minority.
In my life I see my husband's dedication to environmental causes and volunteering a direct result from these words we heard our Freshman year in High School.
Wow, after reading all the comments I've almost forgotten what the main post was about. I think it was about the age of leaders. Rain, you didn't include JFK in your list here but he was 43 when elected and most people would agree that his (short) presidency was a pretty good one.
I think one main point in favor of Obama is that he is not as dug in to the current system as many others, including Hillary. Plus he so far at least has not done much to indicate that he can not be trusted.
As far as Social Security is concerned, I think the beginning of its problems came when so many programs that truly are various forms of welfare were added to it without any change in funding. When those programs were added they really needed to add more funding.
As to Medicare, I really think the best way to get universal medical coverage in this country is to extend Medicare to everyone, including Congress, judges, etc, so they are all on the same medical program. It will need a lot of changing in order for that to work but it might lead to improved coverage for seniors and it is something the medical community is already familiar with. Plus it has a large infrastructure already in place that would likely have to be expanded to handle all the new people but any new program would, too.
OK just to keep this thread going. Kay, why is it the governments responsibility to make your life better? I guess that is another difference between most conservatives and most liberals. Since I graduated from college my life has got better each year. I have busted my ass to make it that way.
Dick, I think you nailed the main problem with Social Security. It was supposed to be a safety net to help keep people out of the poor house. And instead it has become not only a retirement program, but a disability program for alcoholics and druggies and a welfare program for folks that just don't feel like working.
On Kennedy he did do many good things in his short tenure. He was a young charismatic leader which was a good contrast to Khrushchev but there are some that say if he would have stayed in office for a full 8 years and history judged him like a regular president instead of an assassinated hero, we may not have the same high opinion of him. He cut taxes, got lucky with Cuba and inspired us to get to the moon, which is still one of mankind's greatest achievements ever.
And finally Universal Health care is not the answer. We do not want to bring us all down to same miserable level. Let's do something to provide for the 20% that do not have insurance and let the other 80% keep going on our own.
Kay didn't say that government should do that, ingineer. She said it won't. And if you knew her (her blog is linked to the side here), you'd know the caliber of woman she is and that she has had some hard cards dealt her by life. Government can help people that have hard times and I want my government to be there.
You didn't have any way to know this, but you might not have found your path ahead so smooth, even with hard work, if you had had a stroke at 30 or so with small children to raise-- a crippling stroke, and you fought your way back from it.
A lot of people who get help from the government work as hard as anybody else. They have had hard breaks sometimes and other times they haven't had the tools naturally gifted to them to make decent wages in a world that is increasingly valuing higher education (which a lot of Republicans favor making harder for average people to afford.)
It is the difference between dems and republicans. Dems believe in helping the working people and the poor. We haven't always done it wisely but neither have republicans with their handouts to the wealthiest.
I personally find it interesting how many people have strong views on not wanting government to do anything until they have hard times. Many don't look around them to see all the things they depend on the government for. And how many who worry about taxes for the poorest among us are just fine with them to fight a war that made no sense-- a war that they are borrowing to fund.
There is a huge gulf between the people in this country for what we see as important for government to do. For what that war has cost, we could have funded all kinds of programs to get people working, maybe develop alternative energies faster, but oh no, that gladiator war was more important to the ones who dislike taxes the most... very very weird.
It will be interesting to see if Obama can really bridge this gulf. I am not sure anybody can. He has sure set himself a big task.
Thank you Rain for the clarification. I am sorry to Kay and anyone else that I may have offended. Kay's comment that most of Americans lives will not be better is really what peaked my interest in her statement.
Your point about most people not wanting the government until they have a problem is just human nature. Look at how many people complain about the Police, but if someone is breaking into their home, who do they call. The Police.
Republicans do care about and want to help the poor. But we want to base it on being poor. The Dems seem to want to base it on what race you are. In this state there are programs to help you pay for college if you are in certain minority groups even if your father makes $500k a year.
Republicans want to bring everyone up to a higher level. The Dems seem to want to hold everyone down to a lower level and keep them there dependent on big government programs.
My point with this blog, the original point is that younger people may be more open to new ideas and that's the possibility with Obama that isn't there with McCain. Nobody will say the dems have done it all perfectly. It's time to look at programs and find better methods to give real help. Obama says (in that YouTube) that what he does best is help bring together organizations. That means people solving problems and working with both sides of the aisle but not with the idea that we carry along all the mistakes but learn from them and try new things. If people are in a box, they are old no matter what their age. What we need now are some new ideas and vitality to bring them to fruition. What has been happening hasn't worked in a lot of areas; so let's fix it.
oh and for these perfect republicans. They have had absolute power for most of bush's administration. You see any improvements?
I hope you are correct about Obama. I like youth in leadership. I heard a guy today on the radio talking about how the country has been screwed up ever since the hippie baby boomer generation got in control of everything. They were all anti-establishment in the 60's and now they are the establishment. Maybe it is time for "Don't trust anyone over 50".
Well you can say that until you get over 50 anyway *s*. I have heard others suggest that the Baby Boomer generation is not a good one for leadership. Obviously there are plenty of them in corporate leadership, but our two baby boomer presidents, Clinton and Bush haven't exactly thrilled people with what they have done. It is always a risk with any president as to whether they will do what they claim. It's a lot of power to hand someone without an easy way to remove them from office if they misuse it. I feel good about Obama in terms of all I have heard but anyone who gets in there now will have to make a lot of people unhappy to get this thing turned around. So many of our problems are part of transitions in life including possibly the climate changes. Change comes. Some suffer with it and then it gets better as adjustments are made. It won't be a fun time for awhile if oil stays as high as it is. So many people will be hurt badly with that adjustment that calling it that understates what it will feel like.
There are some big changes that we as people have to make though like stopping admiring greed, getting a concept of honor back into life-- and to those who think that all involves religion, it does not. It's about personal ethics and a lot of religious people have none of that. Honor has a cost involved and it's often not fun at all.
Time will tell on Obama. I know a lot didn't like it when Bush came into office. We hoped we were wrong and we got more and more upset as it became obvious we were-- he was worse than anybody could have imagined. Nobody can guarantee what it'll be like with Obama but it looks encouraging to me that he is the right man at the right time. Obama has some qualities that make me think it's going to be good if he is elected but it's a long way from there. As has been mentioned in comments for today's blog, he's not got the nomination yet and I also have concern that the Clintons are not really ready to give up. Then assuming he gets it, it will be a hard campaign.
Post a Comment