Years ago after Frank and I first started
cohabiting we often had rather lengthy
"discussions." Said active repartee was
in essence part of the process of getting
acquainted. While we often disagreed,
we usually resolved our differences or
agreed to disagree. Most important,
once finished we left well enough alone.
Slowly over the years we built a strong
relationship based on honesty, candor,
and most important respect. And today
we rarely have any disagreements. We
now prefer to embrace our differences.
Throughout my business career it was
my job to investigate each and every
option prior to making any decision.
Therefore I encouraged everyone
I worked with to speak his/her piece.
At times it could get rather "hot" as
those diverse opinions were driven
by polar perspectives. However in the
end somebody had to make the decision
whether myself or another above me.
And post drawing a line in the sand -
"US' and "THEM" gathered together
on whatever side was now "OURS".
The difference between decisive
action and wavering consensus
is dramatic. In order for a group
to move forward they must meet
somewhere first. A leader's job
is to guide them to an ultimate
conclusion. In the end that means
choosing one side over the other.
Often residual resentment festers
in those who didn't get their way.
And sadly, post a battle lost some
opt to continue to fight the fight.
Thus we all lose in the process.
On Thursday I watched most of the
Congressional Benghazi interrogation
of Hillary Clinton. Ultimately nothing
new was proved with the exception of
Hillary's grace, aplomb, and dignity
under pressure. Political views aside,
that's the sign of a great leader. If only
one could say the same for the ladies
and gentlemen firing questions as our
former Secretary of State. Like it or
not, their not so hidden agendas were
showing. Enough so that after eleven
hours even Fox News said "enough!"
We elect, promote, and empower people
to assume positions of authority in order
to benefit from their singular perspective.
In other words, at some point the buck
must stop somewhere and we've decided
that it's them. Given there are many tiers
of responsibility, many are involved in
the process of reaching a conclusion. We
assume those we've given said authority
are able to handle an occasional jolt of
power over others. Unfortunately as it's
been said many times - power corrupts.
And few seem strong enough to resist.
One would hope that anybody about to
assume a key role in our government
would freely subjugate their personal
agendas for the good of the whole. Yet
people are people and therefore all too
human. Like it or not their background,
experience, and prejudices can impact
or hinder our forward momentum. You
see, while it should be all about us, it's
usually mostly about them. And in the
end their posturing, pontificating, and
maneuvering wastes our time and...
money. All while feathering their nest.
Are you as "over" Washington as I am?
I tend to align on the more liberal side
of the fence. Yet I long ago accepted the
realty that by living in a society that is
populated by other people... I must give
and take. So why can't those who we've
empowered to lead us do their jobs?
Once a decision is made... why can't
they move on to the next problem? At
some point this bickering has to end.
Whoever wins the Presidency, they're
doing to have to rise above the rest of
us, stop the foolishness and just do it!
