I agree with Robert – this is vintage Ms P at her best … and how do you manage your public image Penelope … this blog is part of it I imagine .. cheers le

Penelope,
New reader and I have enjoyed the in your face attitude. I agree with you fully concerning Palin. She is doing a great job, deserves respect. I am happy to have a woman in this sort of role.

However, we are talking about a position that demands the most qualified persons.

When a team loses the super bowl, they don't go home a winner, but a loser. You don't get anything for losing.

I am just wondering, is she the best we have to fill that role?
BW

Oh come on, she acted like a cocktail waitress, with the winks and the flirtiness. I wouldn't hire someone who behaved like that in an interview, and definitely not one who announced she wouldn't be answering the questions I asked. This woman is doing terrible things for professional women.

A good job? Any actress could do the same "good job." She reminds me of the plucky character in Legally Blonde. Fun to watch, but WAY out of her league.

I find her mannerisms and obnoxious "down home style" over the top. She's Cotton Candy – sweet, fluffy, but no substance. Too much of it rots your teeth and makes you sick.

What I'm afraid of is that people will vote for her (err … I mean … McCain … we still vote for President in this country? Right?)not because she is qualified, but because she "plays up to the camera and is friendly and charming." Being "scrappy" and "in control of her image" are not the skills we need in the leader of our nation.

Sorry, Penelope, got to disagree with you on this one. Palin did NOT do a great job. She did a lousy job, even at trying to do the things you say she was supposed to do. She couldn't even speak in complete sentences, constantly winked at the camera in her girly way, invoked the name of Biden's dead first wife in an attempt to make herself look warm and fuzzy … need I go on?

And there are plenty of people who could have done way better with five weeks to prepare … dare I say I could have, you could have and your other commenters could have.

What will be left of her image after November 4 if she loses? Nothing. She had the chance to be the next star of the GOP and she has done nothing by make a laughing stock out of herself. Even if it means my career would tank, I would never model myself after her or anyone like her.

Palin pulled off what has become the classic conservative move: disguise your hatred for anyone not as white/christian/conservative as you with a charming smile and vapid non-responsive answers that duck any tough question.

If the same people who voted TWICE for George Bush haven't LEARNED anything from that, if those same people vote for the McCain/Palin ticket… well, then our country gets what it deserves.

I don't think I agree with you on this one. I think she came across like Margie from the film Fargo (but not quite as smart.) When she did say something relatively smart I just wanted to yell, "Ya Maar-Gee" (actually I did Tweet that quite a few times during the debate).

I also think that Biden could have taken her down a couple times, but he seemed like he was trying to be a gentleman. That bothered me, too, because if a guy was doing the whole "Joe Six Pack" routine, Biden would have verbally slammed him into the podeum.

Sure, she formed (mostly) coherent sentences. I applaud her for that. But I don't think that's such an amazing accomplishment that we should all now fall to the ground and praise her talents. A high school debater could and would have done a better job.

It still remains–I'm not buying what she's selling. And I think (though I don't have the data to back it up) most undecided voters didn't buy it either.

Sorry Penelope, the vast majority of people with an ideological preference lack the ability to look objectively at the other side.

Despite totally disagreeing with Obama-Biden, I actually liked Joe Biden in the debate and I thought his measured, controlled performance was *exactly* what it needed to be and I already aired my issues with Palin.

Yet most people seem unable to view the "other side" as anything other than evil. They can't just have a different world-view or a different ideology, no – the only way to discuss them is to cast them as dark, dangerous and evil.

Framing the decision in terms of good and evil completely transforms the election from a job interview to a moral crusade. I see no signs of this changing.

I honestly don't understand the venom that is spewed towards Sarah Palin by so called "liberated women". I have no doubt that if she was running on the democratic ticket, she would be greeted with open arms.

Love the reference to Legally Blonde! Palin does remind me of Reese Witherspoon's character, all fluff and little substance. And kudos to the guy from Wasilla for setting us straight on some of her Alaska-isms. It's an interesting and valid perspective.

So many people assume that "good job" means that she fit what they expected or wanted. They missed your point. She gave a great performance. And just like "office politics" is something people like to think they are above…the "performance" is something people need to learn. It does not matter if you are smarter if no one cares to listen. She has taken great advantage of her opportunity and stayed in the spotlight. The only one doing better than her is Tina Fey.

* * * * * *
That Tina Fey comment cracks me up. She is the best part of the political season — by far.

–Penelope

Great post! I'm not a fan of Palin's politics and agree that she's nowhere near prepared for the White House. It's so refreshing though to see someone acknowledge the positive rather than take every possible shot to knock her down. Of course she's not a role model for every aspect of life, but it takes courage and determination to be in her position. She's no doubt concerned at this point about how every word that comes out of her mouth will be judged–I think that explains her hesitancy to give any answer sometimes. Many presidential debaters have done far worse–including some who won office. Credit to you for being mature and unbiased enough to recognize here accomplishments.

Thanks for writing this post–I said the same thing on an internet forum and received similar responses. I don't agree with her politics. I think her lack of knowledge is reason enough to not give McCain a vote. (If I were American instead of Canadian.)
However, as a 22-year-old female University student, I tremendously appreciate her attitude; I respect that she does the best she can with the resources she has. I haven't yet learned how to conquer my insecurities in arenas where I don't feel very competent, despite the fact that I've got a lot of useful skills at my disposal. Sarah used the skills she did have, and managed to keep her head above water. Examples such as Sarah Palin are appreciated.

Alison (new reader)

She did okay. She sounded more sure of herself than she has done in recent interviews. She had that folksy charm going on. She said what she wanted to say. But I would not go so far as to say she "rocked the debate". I'm not saying that I would do better with five weeks' preparation – though I would argue that the VP needs more than five weeks' preparation and that is, perhaps, the point. But really, she was not that convincing. Her job WAS to answer the questions or at least to engage with them in some way. I'm sure her performance would have played well with the base. I can't imagine for a minute that it would have convinced any swing voters who are in fact looking for answers to hard questions.

Right out the door, we get a supposedly friendly, folksy, "Hi, can I call you Joe?" (to a US Senator!) then we find out it was a calculated set-up just so she could work in "Say it ain't so, Joe." (If Senator Biden had said something like "Sarah Plain and Not-So-Tall," all hell would have broken loose.)

Folksy my eye. Manipulative, calculating, power-abusing (Troopergate and other issues), hypocritical about government funding, and yet doesn't even know the name of her own local newspapers. She's fluff. Dangerous fluff. McCain could have picked any one of a number of women with substance. He picked her, and that makes him fluff, too. How dare he risk putting this country in the hands of someone so vapid.

And oh, BTW, Penelope, this post isn't showing up on your front page. I only found it thru RSS.

I have not read the comments so far but I think we *think* she did really well only because of the incredibly low expectations she had set up for herself so far. Yes, she way a million times better than she was with Katie Couric.

Okay, we will give her some credit and learn from her because she did an incredibly good job of dodging questions and fitting what she knew in the right places. But I hope most of America could see through some of this ;) ( yes, and I did learn the wink from Sarah Palin!)

I am sorry to use this language, but this statement by Ray Saunders "Your admiration for her behavior is rather like admiring the Nazis for their efficiency in carrying out the Final Solution.." is fucking ridiculous, to say the least. You were mildly intelligent in your posting Ray Saunders, but the ending really burnt any good ideological bridges you had built along the way..

@Ray, I liked that one: Your admiration for her behaviour is rather like admiring the Nazis for their efficiency in carrying out the Final Solution.

I guess you forgot performance. It is important in politics that your performance is convincing, especially if what you plan to do is from a human perspective may be not exactly correct. But I heard she is only interested in shooting wolves from helicopters, not so bad after all.

"But the best way to figure out who we want to be ourselves is to gather information about a wide range of possibilities for ourselves."

Interesting in so far as I thought that we start looking for "who we want to be" in ourselves. And if nothing pops up there, it might help to set a few quality standards before browsing the country of "unlimited possibilities", who knows what we end up with, only because it is "different" from what we knew so far.

And I would be interested to understand this:
"Wow, I lost track of the number of "nazi" references in the comments. That tells you more about the commenter than they care to admit" from the Opinionator. I mean, what does it tell you?

And of course I am still interested to understand what American politics is about, so I appreciate the comments a lot. The more provocative the post, the more comments, the more I learn. Great system :-)

I have to agree – Sarah Palin rocked…

But… How do you know she memorized anything? Come on…

Sarah Palin is the "real deal".

Regarding the "was probably losing his mind" comment about President Reagan… That is a new low for you, Penelope.

Bummer

Penelope, a response to your response:

Reading your comment, I see now that you think of yourself as the "fun, capable woman who is rising up to the occasion." Who's "ignoring the taunts and she has enough of a sense of self that she's plowing forward."

And that's makes perfect sense. She's around your age, she's good looking and you think she's being underestimated because of her age and the way she looks. No doubt, if you were given the same opportunity you'd also grab it by the horns and try your best too. And you'd want others to acknowledge your efforts.

But for all the "freshness" you see in her, Gen Y women are probably looking at her and seeing that she's very clearly playing the gender card for all it's worth. I know I am. She's playing cute and winking at the camera which really makes me cringe. Maybe her image, her speech and her mannerisms appear "fresh" to the older generations, but to the younger generations, she sounds and looks sort of old fashioned.

Seriously, a beehive hairstyle?

I agree with the basic premise of the post and although I think she's a complete joke of a candidate for U.S. V.P., I admit to being impressed by her performance. Although everyone admits she benefitted from bottom-of-the-barrel expectations, and I'm sure that was at least your subconscious as well.

But the more important point is what does performing well in a prepared debate have to do with be qualified to think on your feet, inspire millions of people, and make difficult decisions that alter people's lives in fundamental ways? The skills required for her impressive debate performance are largely irrelevant to what I'd consider to be the important competencies for running our government.

The connection of this topic to the business world is the difference between choosing between the job candidate that interviews the best and the one that is actually the best for the job. If you don't hire the 2nd one more often than the first, eventually it will catch up to you.

Finally, someone please explain to me why our leaders should be someone we can sit down and have a beer with? Why can't they be someone smarter and with more vision than me? Why can't they be someone I aspire to be more like? I have plenty of people that I can go to happy hour with. What I need is damn leader that can make intelligent long-range decisions and respond to crises with tranquility, action, and forethought.

Chris–how can we know she memorized anything? are you kidding?

@Penelope: The what-about-Hilary-Clinton comment is an interesting one. I just wouldn't want to be her. I'm sure she's a genius, and a really hard worker. But she's not fun to watch, she's not inspiring to me. She seems very my-mom's-generation to me…Women with power can do that now. Women could not have done that a generation ago, I don't think. It's a million things like that that add up to the freshness I see in her.

I must admit that this response to Kathy's comment got me worried. After half a year in the white house the freshness will be pretty much gone, and then what? Are you seriously saying that your president and VP's job is to inspire you, give a fun show and help you overcome inner limitations like "a woman with power can (not) wear her hair sort of like a school girl"?
What if it turns out that Palin can wear her hair like that because she still is a school girl? Great perspective. I wouldn't want to be Tarja Halonen (Finnish President) or Angela Merkel (German Chancellor), but I wouldn't want to exchange them for a school girl, no matter how fresh she looks.
May be it would be good to have some relevant criteria for the public on how to recognise what makes a "good" politician, seems to me that things have gotten confused a little bit.

David Rees pointed out that most people cannot get over their ideological persuasion, viewing the other side as "evil". I agree. (Seems to me the Republicans have raised this narrow thinking to a high art: Witness the Republican rallies, where the audience boos and cheers predictably when McCain/Palin criticize the Democratic ticket.)

Penelope implies that she CAN get over the ideological thang and learn from the opposition. Penelope has also written many times in the past about welcoming criticism, truly believing that criticism is constructive. Which it is.

I think this is an important point: to be able to learn from those who are different from you, and who may oppose you. Takes humility and restraint.

CAK

@Opinionatpr's comment on "In four years, the $40B pipeline deal she negotiated with Canada and the private sector will be under way…"

Time magazine's article "Palin's Pipeline to Nowhere" suggests otherwise. This article supports my fear that Palin, while commendable in motive and theory, still has a lot to learn about reality.

I think Palin has saved McCain's campaign, however, two months may give us too much time to learn too much about her. Her freshness might become a little too exposed.

Penelope, Love your blog. It is one of the highlights of my day when I receive an email with a new posting.
I know this is a career blog, not a political one, but would like to bring up one obvious point that nobody really seems to be addressing.
Palin is inexperienced, there is no doubt about that, but is Obama. Which is better, an inexperienced VP or an inexperienced President?
I'm definately not a McCain fan, but to be fair, if we are talking about experience, I'm more comfortable with that inexperience being in the VP position rather than the Presidency.

Politics aside, I get what's interesting and copy-able in Palin's performance. I think that's the problem though. Because I also have long, long years of "Be a good girl…" training that makes the idea of standing up and saying, "Of course I can do it!" When any idiot can see that I can't, unthinkable.

I agree with many above who said they or people they know could have done better with 5 weeks prep. As a former career counselor who has prepped many for interviews and presentations for high level positions, I wholeheartedly agree that her performance was not up to par, regardless of gender or initial expectations based on previous appearences.

Most articles on print and web here in DK is "Palin this & Palin that", so from the old site of the pond, she's setting the agenda and press coverage.

Thanks Penelope for the angle!

I think this is a great post– love her or loathe her, Palin can teach us a lot about what "looks like" a leadership attitude. Palin's performance(s) also offer lessons to organizations about how they can present themselves to look authentic in areas where they are not. If interested, check the post Use Real Authenticity to Establish Fake Authenticity: Sarah Palin shows organizations how at http://www.AuthenticOrganizations.com

Biden made a goof in explaining the legislative role of the VP: "…as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/index.html

Here is what the Constitution says: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

How could someone who has been US Senator for so long make such a blunder?

@Chris Young – Re Reagan's "losing his mind" — my husband has Alzheimer's, and that is not an insult; it's a tragically accurate description of what happens. We just hope it doesn't happen to the President while he's in office, which is one of the bazillion reasons I won't be voting for McCain/Palin.

Penelope,

Did you mean that Sarah Palin should be my mentor or that should should be my role model?

I don't know that she would have time to take on all the BC readers as mentees. But many of us may be interested in using her (or some of her behaviors) as a model.

Cheers,
-Craig-

I gotta tell ya, Penelope, after reading this post, I'm wondering who spends the most time in the shallow end of the intellectual pool, you or Palin? I figured out a while back that the Brazen part of the "Brazen Careerist" was that you make most of your stuff up as you go along, and I'm fine with that, but your swings on the Palin situation really make me wonder about your intellectual and emotional stability; or whether you are just messing with us. "Interior Secretary"???. You CAN'T be serious. Forget that she clearly stated many times that she would expand on the Cheney doctrine which maintains that the office of the Vice President is not a part of the Executive branch, and oh by the way, we don't even have to respond to congressional subpoenas, let alone answer your questions about what we do. I mean, is that what the Republicans think this country really wants from our leadership?
I loved the comment about whether you would hire someone who behaved that way in an interview, which I think pretty well sums the debate up. I think that presenting Sarah Palin as a valid candidate for the office of Vice President epitomizes what has become of our political process, pandering to the lowest common denominator in the populace, but at the same time obeying the wealthy donors.
But you know what? Doggonit, I'm pleased that she is in the contest, because she really exposes the Republican party for the narrow, out of touch, isolated party that it is; and it makes the job easier for the Democrats; they almost don't have to do anything, simply use the old strategy for dealing with fools, which is to give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves.
I know it's difficult to criticize someone for trying to expand their horizons and challenge themselves, but there have to be some realistic limitations. I would love to be running the Fed or skating on a line with Alexander Oveshkin, but it ain't gonna happen. We aren't talking about a big fish in a small pond here, we're talking about becomming a big fish in the biggest pond. We don't need actors or "quick studies", we need wisdom and leadership.
Steve C.

Wow, Penelope, when I saw this post I thought,"here she goes again, trying to get people stirred up." I love the fact that you enjoy doing this, and what a great post!

I absolutely detest Sara Palin, as do many others here. But what you were trying to do was say that here is someone who is making the most of the moment. Sara's probably not so stupid that she doesn't realize she's not up to the job. She's just taking her 15 minutes as far as it will get her. And she will indeed land on her feet, probably as a political commentator of some kind. Or maybe – Dancing with the Stars?

And if you read PTs post carefully, you can see that she is not endorsing her or her stupidity. But sometimes we can learn something – or emulate something, in this case poise and guts – in someone we absolutely detest.

A good lesson for all us, particularly when we're mired in politically emotion.

I appreciate the objectivity of this post, especially since I know you are not voting for McCain/Palin. I agree with the non political points made but really disagree with the crack on Reagan.

Ronald Reagan's management style should be a model to all managers for his ability to be optimistic, his sense of humor, his ability to delegate & his effective communication & execution of a broad vision. Read Peter Robinson's "How Ronald Reagan Changed My life" & you would never say that Reagan was "losing his mind". The massive economic turnaround & winning the cold war speak to his greatness.

I will also say that there is more to Palin then just image. She comes across as extremely authentic and her decisions are guided by a idealogy not polls or focus groups. As long as everyone keeps underestimating her she will continue to do well. She is a rock star. Think about it. You didn't watch that debate to see Joe Biden.

@Neil C. – Reagan was indeed "losing his mind" at the end of his term; he was in the earliest stages of Alzheimer's and that is its precise definition. However "authentic" Sarah P. is, I would rather not have a rock star for President. I did watch the debate to see Joe Biden, who is more than qualified to be President and demonstrated it.

@Steve C.-What exactly is the tab for Reagan's policies? He fundamentally changed our economy to allow it to flourish over the next 15 years after he left. The crisis now is a result of a weak dollar, high energy costs & the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It has nothing to do with Reagan & everything to do with liberal Democrat policies of caving into the environmental lobby by not drilling for oil & forcing banks to lend to poor people & minorities who can't pay back mortgages.

Jean-Reagan was not diagnosed until he was 3 years after he was out of office. Penelope said in the post that he was losing his mind when we elected president. That is why I disagreed with her.

I am looking forward to Obama raising my taxes. I don't pay enough now & the deadbeats that don't work deserve more of my money.

Neil C. You mean Reagan the father of trickle-down economics and deregulation? The father of let's lower taxes and borrow against our future instead? Ronald Reagan invented the freaking deficit. Thank God Paul Volcker was around to clean up after him. I can tell you are passionate about being a Reagan Republican, and I can tell you from experience that trying to get through to anyone who uses the words Reagan and greatness in the same sentence is like trying to convince Rush Limbaugh to abuse pain killers. It's too depressing to go over the history again, so I'm going to let you have the last word and suggest we let everyone else discuss current events and let old Ronnie rest in peace, wherever he is.
Steve C.

Sarah knows how to manage her image? Is that why she let Katie Couric interview her AFTER the debacle with "Charlie" Gibson? Sarah Palin has abdicated her image management to her handlers. She knew how to manage it in Alaska but has no idea that she is not in Wasilla anymore, Toto. God help us all if McCain wins and dies of cancer or a heart attack (maybe even before Jan 20 09).

Ah jeeze, I was going to let this go but there is one comment I just can't walk away from….Here we are in a situation where no one in the bloody free world can force banks to lend a dime to even the most creditworhty corporations in existence, but a few posts back Neil C. blamed the current financial crisis, for the most part, on "liberal Democrats", per se: "The crisis now is a result of a weak dollar, high energy costs & the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It has nothing to do with Reagan & everything to do with liberal Democrat policies of caving into the environmental lobby by not drilling for oil & forcing banks to lend to poor people & minorities who can't pay back mortgages." Let me repeat: "FORCING(my emphasis) banks to lend to poor people and minorities who can't pay back mortgages". Elitist and racist overtones aside, to put it mildly, this baby just screams out for attention. Oh yeah, us liberal democrats dragged those mortgage brokers and real estate brokers and ratings agencies and investment bankers just kicking and screaming into the sub-prime, commission-oozing mortgage mess. Yup, forced 'em right into it, poor little right-wing Wall Street bankers.
I knew we were powerful, but even I, a commie-loving, work-hating, republican-bashing, ex-hippie weatherman backpacking pinko democrat never dreamed we could pull that one off. C'mon, what planet are you republicans from, really? Ok, I'm done.
Steve C.

ok, great article, good analysis of Sarah Palin's performance.

Here's the question, however. Sarah Palin has demonstrated her incompetence on national TV. She accepted a job, that the better part of the country is sure Sarah is not even approximately qualified for. She's picked a bozo of a boss (granted, he's mostly a bozo for having picked her for the VP spot), and let herself become the target of all those taunts.

Is the visibility going to be worth the public humiliation in terms of promoting Palin's career in the long run? Is this a good way to go about building a career – putting oneself in the spotlight, even when ridiculously unqualified? Should a career woman really want a mentor like Sarah Palin?

I find this post so utterly dismaying that I hardly know where to start.

You've written often about the value of being a good person. What Palin showed during her debate is the willingness to do anything to WIN. Not the definition of a good person, not someone a good person would want as a mentor.

She's gotten worse since the debate, with hyped- up rhetoric falsely portraying Obama as someone who pals around with terrorists– prompting someone in her audience to shout "Kill him!" I'm afraid that in her eagerness to win, she will incite a real culture war– the fighting in the streets kind. The assassination of public figures kind.

I hope Repubicans are quietly contacting their party and asking party leaders to tone Palin down. If one of her whacked-out followers winds up killing Obama, it would usher in a time of true horror for our country. And, I would think, the end of the Republican party.

How can this woman possibly be seen as a mentor?

Poise and self-belief without competence or integrity – maybe Palin is a good mentor for today's corporate world.

@kevin-

Thanks – I was going to post the same thing. It seems like most of the commentors totally missed Penelope's point. It seemed rather straight forward, but I'm not a partisan. That probably is why it was so easy to see what her point was.

@Steve C.

I really believe the two issues are one and the same. We have become such a partisan country, because we’ve been led to believe that the people on the other side “don’t get it” and therefore aren’t worthy of engaging in real dialogue and discussion. By definition the, we “do get it” and need to consider our own positions no more.

Dialogue requires listening, which requires at least a modicum of respect for the other person and their views. True conversation requires understanding the inherent worth in the positions of others, such that you can help them see other points of view, but so that you can also use their perspective to refine your own.

As people, we love independence and therefore love choice. We are consumers who not only consume to live, but consume to demonstrate or values. Too often, this is used against us, as we are presented A vs. B options by the very groups that benefit from those categorizations. It is only when we realize that the answer is neither A nor B, but a C which inherently respects the underlying values of the original choices, that we can work together as a team.

Without that, any exchange is merely shouting your position in an ever-louder fashion.

Today we too often label ourselves by the words that divide us – as republicans or democrats, conservatives or liberals, pro-life or pro-choice. Until we first think of ourselves as Americans – people not only with a shared set of values but a need to work with everyone to solve our current issues – we’ll fall deeper and deeper into trouble.

@Kevin-

If you wouldn't mind, please e-mail me at 295anderson@gmail.com

Thanks.

@Juki Schor

Thanks for the question. Rejecting their decisions and values isn’t the same as rejecting their skills, abilities, or perspectives.

It’s too easy to say there’s nothing redeeming about Bush and write him off. But how does someone with no redeeming qualities get to be President of the US? He can’t.

Stalin was one of the most successful mass murderers, but he didn’t start out at the top and didn’t reach the top through mere violence alone. How did he get people to follow him when he had nothing? He must have found a way.

Certainly values come into play. But excluding things which are clearly illegal, or that you feel to be immoral, leaves most strategies open for all to use. Do we use legislation, protest, popular opinion, market forces or some combination? Do we trade favors with influential groups because our proposal is too important to wait, or do we only work with people we like – with the possibility that our proposals will never materialize?

If we look at skills like how to give a speech, or remember names, or network, these are even more benign. Some people HATED Ronald Reagan’s values, but admired his optimism in difficult times. Other people HATED Bill Clinton’s values, but admired his ability to connect with people at all levels of society.

The last thing to look at is their perspective – how they see the world – both in terms of how it is and how it could be. We’re all limited in our ability to imagine, because we all have a limited set of experiences from which to project. If we simply look at the world the same way that those like us do, our ability to create a better future is severely limited.

We need the perspectives of others, both to incorporate their ideas into ours and to understand how our vision can be expanded to become a vision shared by a larger group.

Simply pushing for solar energy – for example – without understanding what everyone else is thinking in the energy and surrounding spaces, leaves you vulnerable to a changing landscape.

What are the petroleum people doing that we can incorporate into our vision and use to help sell our ideas? How will the future of the petroleum industry both help and hurt our cause? If we simply write them off as last century’s energy producers, we’ll never be able to co-opt their best ideas, find areas of agreement, or form coalitions with them to further our goals.

The beauty of this approach is that we’ll find much to admire in those we initially don’t like, and we’ll find ourselves being much more open, respectful, and engaged with people who initially seem different than us – a good outcome if there ever was one.

Dear Kevin, thank you for your answer. I understand that you are saying that there are certain skills and strategies that one needs to have in order to become successful and it is certainly a given that somebody who has become president of the US has to have some of these redeeming qualities. These are neutral skills that one can acquire, I understand. So I get that in order to learn neutral skills that one needs for being successful (like a cute hairstyle), and I think this is what Penelope suggested with her post, one needs to leave the content aside and just look at "how did they manage to reach their goal", never mind the goal.
I guess that is a fair approach for a blog community called "brazen careerist". However, I got the impression that the post started to make this approach a basis for electing a new president? Getting excited about how well a candidate plays the different tools for success and applying these neutral skills in a "fresh" way doesn't qualify them necessarily for Vice or president, does it? Shouldn't there be some "content"? For electing a president I feel it is not true that " the last thing to look at is their perspective – how they see the world – both in terms of how it is and how it could be." Or are you saying that president in your country is all about letting people play around with the tools of power, never mind their goals?
Our imagination creates this world. We have to look at how they imagine the world, especially and primordially in the case that they have their skills in place, because then it is very likely that they manifest their imagination! Your collective imagination to be a country of "unlimited possibilities" is the cause of your financial crash, because money is a synonym for possibility. If you want unlimited possibilities = unlimited money fortunes, deregulation becomes a necessity and you got the best people up there to do it, they HAD the skills. You got what you/they imagined, whether you knew it or not. If your imagination would be to create a country with "fair reality for everyone" instead of "unlimited possibility", the same skills would create a different situation. Election is a content question and I guess I had the perception that it was made a question of "how well they play the career tools". Thanks for the clarification.

I, for one, am tired of the rural gun crowd running my country. They've had a long time in charge, and look where it has gotten us. They want to brand people like me an elitist, because I read books and newspapers. But who's the real elitist? They actually think they're better than me BECAUSE they're ignorant.

Every time Palin talks about being from the "real" America, I want to ask her why New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, etc. are not "real" America. After all, major urban areas are creating most of the tax revenue that the rural towns get to spend on erecting 10 Commandments monuments at their courthouses. We have poor people. Working class people. Honest people doing an honest day's work. What makes rural people more American than me?

These same "folk" call themselves "values voters" which is a veiled suggestion that anyone who doesn't vote their way doesn't have values.

I don't think killing innocent people in foreign lands is moral. I don't think taking money away from poor and working class and giving to the rich is moral. I don't think shoving your religion down other people's throats is moral. I don't think denying people civil rights because of a selective interpretation of the Bible is moral.

And their representatives, Palin included, are not the down home, hands in the soil, working folk they pretend to be. George Bush was born with a platinum spoon up his a$$, rich beyond imagination, father in the CIA and then later the White House. Yale educated, handed business to run into the ground with no consequences. There are few people who are less like the voters he appealed to.

It's time educated eggheads like us took over the debate again. There are very objective qualifications for the Vice Presidency. Palin has none of them. We need smart, intellectually curious, truly moral, and inspiring leadership, not Bush with heels.

We need to expose McCain's choice of VP for what it is: a slap in the face to women everywhere. A clear demonstration of his desperation for winning any votes he can grab. And, most importantly, an even clearer indication of the kinds of people McCain would likely surround himself with if he were to be elected. Panderers to his "base." The very people responsible for the mess we're in right now.

Hi all. I'm at a AAA hockey tournament in Salt Lake City, so that makes me qualified to talk about Palin right? Just kidding, but I am doing the hockey-dad manager thing this weekend, and I could tell you some horror stories about hockey-moms. Some great comments by all. Wish I had more time to digest and comment. I think that our lives have been commandeered by Hollywood, at least politically, not just because practically everyone gets their information fed through television, but because election campaigns have become performance driven. We all can argue the merits of experience,etc., but the sad truth is that the party with the deepest pockets, the best actors, and the most media exposure is most likely to win. It's really hard to take an objective view of the KSA's of people who ultimately want to destroy what you consider to be your way of life. I go back to my original comments(Penelope's ist blog on Palin) re Karl Rove picking Palin to neutralize the women voting in this election. The biggest division in this country is the emotional intellegence divide

@ Peggy. Let's hope she doesn't "Just have fun" Nuking Moscow. With the people we've had running the defense dept. for the last eight years, they'll probably hit London.
Steve C.

Suki, YOU are the breath of fresh air . . . I suspect that your ability to look at our culture/politics from the vantage point of another culture has made your observations so refreshing . . .

Briefly, when you asked why we do not have more intellectually curious and moral applicants for the top leadership jobs, I think there are lots of reasons.

Money. You need to be able to be a fund-raiser par excellence to run for office. I've lost count of the millions spent on the campaigns–a lot of people without basic healthcare could have gotten it, had those monies been redirected to them. Sigh.

Experience I. Many of the best applicants have grown up in political families–the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Bushes . . . to name a few.

Experience II. These guys have had experience in lesser political roles that set them up, so to speak, for their advancing on to the top positions.

The Drive to Lead, to Win–almost like a calling.
Sad to say, this Drive often includes arrogance, bluster and bluff.

Finally, and I hope Penelope will tackle this at some point: What IS a leader, a top leader, and how does s/he get to the top in order to fulfill his/her destiny? There are other ill-defined qualities and "charisma".

CAK

@ Kevin
Very well said – appreciate the logic.

@Juki Schor

Wouldn't that be a task for some "smart, intellectually curious, truly moral
and inspired person" to develop one?

Actually, more than one. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, established a set of requirements to be qualified to hold the office of President.

• You have to be a natural-born US Citizen (a citizen from birth – but not necessarily born in the USA, which is a common misconception).
• You have to be at least 35 years of age.
• You have to have resided in the US for the last 14 years.

They understood that having a minimum of qualifications – basically someone who understand the country’s problems and has the country’s best interest at heart – creates the largest pool of people who could compete for the job.

That we subsequently create a whole class of pseudo-requirements in order to rhetorically disqualify people, and then drag everyone who applies through a sort of personal demonization to boost our own egos, means we get much fewer people interested in the job than is optimal.

Come on! Pakistani President Zardar called Sarah Palin gorgeous……That's what she is and nothing else…Dont risk electing the man who selected her as his running mate! Someone who cannot select his VP well does not have what it takes to run your country!

@ Juki. I've used the analogy of captain before, and would point out again that the real problem with this country and the political system that has evolved is that it favors those who are best at being elected captain, rather than those who are best at steering the ship. As any good captain knows(or should know), the hard part of that job is the "troubled waters" part, not just when you encounter "troubled waters", but how to avoid them whenever possible. There is also a reason for pilots in every port of call. They are the local experts who guide the vessel safely into port and then back out to sea again, and it's not just for the safety of those on the ship. The consequences of ignoring the skills and services of pilots are obvious to all but the most ignorant, or really stupid, people. If anyone in the country should get that, it should be the Alaskans.
Our current "captain" never really got that part of the job.
As for being saved, well, wait just a minute there, Juki. We're the great Americans. We do the saving part, not the other way around. That's why we don't need pilots..we'll just make our own freaking harbor, ya know? How did McCain and Rumsfeld put it? We make history, not the other way around, or something like that.
Besides, if you think about it, who would come to our rescue? Even if they could rescue us, who would really want to? I suspect that most of the people in the world would rather see us crash and burn, if they thought they wouldn't be dragged down with us.
@ Kevin. I don't have the confidence to presume what the founding fathers did or didn't understand, but maybe a job description isn't such a bad idea. "Wanted, leader of free world.." Nah, that doesn't sound right. How about, "Seeking applicants for the position of President of the United States…"? As directors of HR, we could start off with the "No Assholes Rule", and work from there. "Ms. Palen, could you describe an unpleasant work experience you've encountered, and tell us how you handled it"?
I'd love to sit in on that interview.
In the long run, maybe it would be cheaper and way more honest to use the corporate model. :-)
Steve C.

Hello Penelope – I do agree with you. I find myself liking her in spite of myself. She's great TV. She's the kind of person you can't ignore.

No, I wouldn't vote for her. She's out of her league, and her values are just plain bizarre.

But I do admire her.

If you're going to bother to do something, do it extraordinary.

"Is this post sincere"

Thanks Kevin for Palin-Obama comparison. Atleast Palin has some executive experience.

Juki and Steve are talking about "saving" . . . which leads me to believe we haven't (yet) defined leadership in a comprehensive manner. Leadership should be pro-active–so that "saving" would seldom be necessary.

There is room for disagreement on this–there is a time for saving a situation as best we can; a time for prosperity; a time for laying low, etc.
Flexibility in leadership would address all these eventualities.

The final question in the 2nd presidential debate (Juki, have you seen any of these?) was "How will you learn the things you don't know now?" The spin-doctors/press generally agreed that neither candidate gave a great answer: Barack acknowledged Michelle, his wife, who apparently calls his attention to important items. I don't even remember what John McCain answered . . . probably because it wasn't memorable. But I think that the answer to that particular question would point to the issue of flexibility and creativity in a leader. It isn't all laid out–there are lots of surprises. The astute politicians have early recognition of these (this may be tied up with experience, and the ability to make applications from previous surprises); and they are early responders . . . which may be as close as you can get to being pro-active in some situations.

In summary, being proactive, being flexibile and reacting calmly and quickly to unexpected situations should be added to the definition of leadership. IMO.
CAK

Hi all. Juki, as soon as I hit submit on that last post, I had the feeling that it might sound confusing to you. A bit of tongue-in-cheek but also trying to be dead serious at the same time, and didn't really pull it off. The comment about saving was my little parody of how things have been run in The White House for the past 8 years, or at least until they let Don Rumsfeld slink off into the netherworld. It's kind of the traditional "Ugly American" picture on steroids and LSD at the same time, a very "my way or the highway" mentality. The attitude this administration has formented over the past eight years has been a bulldozer attitude, regardless of whether we were dealing with Allies or enemies, perceived or otherwise. This is what has put us into Iraq over the objections of virtually all the people with knowledge and expertise regarding the middle-east. Rather than having Saddam as a counter-balance to Bin Laden , Al Quaida and the Talibani, or at the very least a distraction to them, we had to go forth, kill the guy, and occupy a country at great cost and suffering to us AND to the poor people trying to live in that country.
We have been creating the very "Troubled Waters" that our captain and crew should be protecting us from. This is why Sarah Palin is so troubling to so many in this country. She is Dick Cheney in drag, but not nearly as smart and experienced as Cheney. She is a small-time politician, in a backwards state, and may have energized the Rush Limbaugh set(I'm assuming you know of this right-wing radio talk show host), but she is nowhere near being qualified to step in as president if the need arises.
It is simply amazing that while staring right smack-dab into the face of problems(financial and otherwise)that have been created by putting under-qualified individuals in such critical positions, the republicans want to embrace yet another unqualified individual.
I don't care what organization you are dealing with, people in positions they are unqualified to hold create most of the problems that the organizations have to correct. Managers, parents, HR people, teachers, you name it; poor job matching is at the root of most of the grief and aggravation we end up having to deal with and suffer through in life. These issues are multiplied enormously when they become part of public policy, of leadership. The problems eventually trickle down to our personal lives and realtionships. Witness the current mortgage/financial crisis. This is caused by, not the result of, an abject failure of leadership in the corporate and political landscape, manifested in, among other things, the greedy compensation packages throughout corporate America. Once the leadership shows the way, everyone feels licensed to participate in the looting. Some simply have to participate in order to to maintain status, the ultimate driving force among the wealthy and powerful. Once Ronald "I don't recall" Reagan led the way, well, look at the recent testimony of Bush's Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, the United States Attorney General for crying out loud! And here we are trying to teach our kids not to cheat on their homework and tests? Anyway, another topic for another day.
My other comment about saving was one borrowed from a trucker in Florida who picked me up Hitch-hiking a couple of years ago. Who would really come to our aid, if we needed saving? I'm not just questioning ability here, but rather desire and will, not just because of political expediency. You can only go around pissing everyone off for so long before they just don't want to have anything to do with you anymore. If only some wise old Texan had gotten George Bush aside years ago, and reminded him of the old axiom: "Son, it's hard to ride tall in the saddle when you owe everyone in town"; he might have taken us down a different path.
Steve C.

Hallo Chris, these are very valuable remarks for me. It shows that we probably are talking about completely different things. You are concerned with the question which qualities make a good leader.
I was concerned with the question whether "leading" is a reasonable mode of operation between president and people in a democracy. I write here only because I feel that "wanting to be led by a leader" is imo a strange attitude for a democratic society towards their government. I thought it is about representation or at best "managing"?

When I hear leading I see a cowboy with a horse on a rope. A leader implies to me that there are followers he will lead. There are of course good leaders and not so good leaders, but truth is, once somebody is a leader, he determines where the followers are going, that is what leading is about. And I thought in a democracy the people lead, the sovereign, through representatives?

Basically, I see that the people in your case is like a horse that sits down with a person who wants to become their leader and they try to find out where this person wants to go with them before they agree to give him the rope for leading them. In addition I had the feeling that the horse doesn't have clear criteria how to determine whether that person is going to be a good leader or not, as you also pointed out. Once the horses hang on the rope or are harnessed in front of a carriage, all they can do is hope that the leader keeps his promises and knows what he is doing.

I thought democracy is the other way around, the president and his crew being the horses that pull your carriage according to your directions. Or, if you like to be horses, President and his crew would be your employed "stable managers" who organize the structures in a way that you, the horses, can do their work in peace, raise your foals and create value. They get their directions from You. Saying, when you are in bad shape (as a nation), you are not going to win the races you planned to win, so they have managed you badly and will get fired. With the president being a leader, he will give You directions where he wants to go with you or with your help and when you get bruised, that's too bad, but as he has the leading rope, there is not much you can do.

My perception might be completely wrong. I perceived that the sovereign, the people, in your country actually resign from using their directing power when they ask for a president to "lead" them. At least to me it seems that you are looking for a person from whom you would be willing to "take directions", because this is what "leaders" are about. And I somehow thought, this is weird for a democracy. But of course, it is your choice as the sovereign, if my perception is correct at all. If so, I agree that you need a good method for assessing your leaders. So the horses don't get bruised so much or need to be saved all the time :-)

Hi Juki. I think you have hit the nail on the head, as we say in this country. I too appreciate the conversation as well, especially your insightful perspective on leaders and followers. Very interesting viewpoint. I think there are others posting who are very appreciative as well. These posts of Penelope's regarding Sarah Palin have attracted some very articulate and thoughtful participants from various political and philosophical persuasions. Yours are the most interesting I think to all of us as you have such a unique perspective. You are correct I think in that as a country, we are very confused as to who is really in charge, what we really want/expect from democracy. We do not have a very good track record of teaching accurate and unbiased history in our schools, and if you gave a pop quiz to most of the people in this country as to how the political system actually works, most would fail, myself included. In fact, I would venture to guess that you know more about how our system works than we do. I should say that most of the comments you are finding here are not typically main-stream, where Obama is accused of being a terrorist, etc. But the good news is, most of us writing to this site can spell and write in complete sentences. I know, I know. I'm being an effete snob ;-).
Steve C.

More on the question of leadership in a democracy:

To pick up on the horse/cowboy analogy . . . The problem is that there are many, many horses over a vast territory. This is unwieldy or unmanageable. That is why in some issues the 50 states have retained some sovreign powers–the federal government cannot manage such a large group. States keep control of many issues. In some issues, states share power with the federal gov't (the Medicaid program is the best example I can think of).

The individual people (being led)have a representative democracy. They elect representatives who present the views/wants of the constituents when policy/laws are being formulated. Each individual cannot hope to assert his/her individual rights/wishes/opinions. The majority will rule–or the representative will try to honestly represent his constituents (often the most vocal, those who communicate with their senators and representatives, will have their wishes asserted, even if they are NOT the majority).

Example: the people don't wish for more taxation, but they want roads and schools and libraries, which are paid for by taxes. So, there is a push-me-pull-me to determine what level of taxation is tolerable/desirable. This "debate" about taxes has been evident in the presidential campaigning.

American history is thought to have had, as an early principle, "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps" and "rugged individualism". But we have social programs, for the commonweal, and we must knuckle under and pay taxes to support those programs. We are NOT individuals, entitled to our own individual sense of democracy. We are a large and unwieldy and diverse group. We must do things for the common good that we might not choose if we were individuals . . .

Juki, does this fit in to your perceptions at all? Or are we just not on the same page?

CAK

Hi Chris,
I think we are very much on the same page, I just seem to look from a different angle, sitting in Europe.
Steve wrote: we are very confused as to who is really in charge.

My perception is that there are people in your country who are absolutely not confused, and they are in charge. My point was that those, who
are at present confused, are the ones who should be in charge, but as they are confused, that is hard to accomplish. These confused people don't seem to know "what they really want/expect from democracy" as Steve writes. This is what I sensed when I asked for "criteria" how to evaluate your president as I felt the ones given were really
confusing with respect to a president of the US, at least to me.

As long as this is as it is, those who know what they want from your "democracy", will get it, at your expenses. And you are actually not having a democracy imo.
I am even going further. Keeping a large part of the population confused about what they want and how it works guarantees a large enough potential of supporters for "leaders", who love to lead confused people towards their own goals and raise funds on the go. Leadership, as I define it, is all about "leading confused, threatened or ignorant people out of perceived danger". It has not much to do with democracy.

I think the reason for my entering the conversation is that I feel that the right thing to do in a democracy would be to "unconfuse" people, not continue "leading" them, confused as they are. If Steve is right when saying that "We do not have a very good track record of teaching accurate and unbiased history" and that many people don't know "how the political system actually works", this would be the first two issues I would want to see in the programme of a person applying for presidency if you really want democracy. In addition, I would expect the election process to contain some kind of public, verifiable assessment centre where you make sure
that the candidates themselves have an unbiased view on his-story and know how the system works (you might learn something as well :-)).

You wrote that "the people don't wish for more taxation, but they want roads and schools and libraries, which are paid for by taxes. We must knuckle under and pay taxes to support those programs. We are NOT individuals, entitled to our own individual sense of democracy. We must do things for the common good that we might not choose if we were individuals".

What I read from this is that "democracy" as it operates in your country in the moment is not in harmony with your "individual idea of democracy". Now, the issue about democracy is that YOU decide how it operates. If you want schools, libraries and roads and you do not want to pay taxes for that, then find another way how to pay for them or build them by yourself, I guess that is "pulling yourself up by one's bootstraps". In order to get there you need to have a political program and representatives who push it forward. But, you need to also honestly look at the question whether you do not want to do things for common good because you are greedy, egoistic, careless or "Darwinists" at any expense in relation to weaker people's difficulties. Or whether your individual sense of democracy senses accurately that the so called "payment for common good" is not serving those who are in need but just financing something else, right? Taxes are very handy, like a general allowance to milk the cows whenever the State feels like it. In a democracy you have to argue about taxes, I think it is good news that you do.

You mentioned that "American history is thought to have had, as an early principle, "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps" and "rugged individualism". And there seem to be "many, many horses over a vast territory" of this type which is "unwieldy or unmanageable." Fact is, horses might have different shapes and colours, but with respect to their basic needs and wishes for life they are quite similar. They want enough to eat and drink, feel safe, have company, reasonable work, facilities to raise their kids and every now and then a party. Considering the early principles of your country, most of your horses would be pretty much able to manage all this by themselves, if left alone by taxes and the State, otherwise you wouldn't exist any more. For the horses it doesn't really matter that they are wide spread. They might discuss, what is "enough or too much food and what to do with the horse shit", but they even would settle this conflict among themselves. All the state needs to do is supply the boxing ring and watch that they don't kill each other right away.

Therefore the question is: For whom and for what purpose is it "unwieldy and unmanageable" that they are many and widespread? Which takes us back to the leadership question: for a cowboy it is much easier to have them all herded in a round pen, then open the gate and just yell "go" (behind me, of course). Typically, how they get you into the round pen, is through "crisis". But that is not democracy, at least not in my perception.
I would be interested to learn how a democracy would look like that would "embrace your individual idea of democracy"? What I get from this conversation is that you actually would have a huge freedom to design your own democracy over there. But out of confusion you have left this designing process for years to a few families with distinct interests of their own. That's not good news, I feel. :-)

Hi Chris,

:-), thank you very much for the offer to participate in a "think-tank". Not sure what you mean by this, where that would be (probably not on this site) and for which purpose? But if you feel that "challenging questions" for your issue would help, I am happy to supply and discuss them. Hope we have fresh air in the "tank"? Waiting for details…:-)

I actually had decided to stop posting for a while, feels like I have been over present here lately and kind of carried away with the fun of mind games.

Just one last comment with respect to Maine and "individual" wishes to alter the system. The most important factor in achieving goals is imo a 100% positive motivation FOR something. One reason why "greed" is so successful is that it is 100% "positively" motivated, "positive" meaning here that people "have no doubts that they want it", more money, bigger car or house, better lover, whatever individual goals they have.

Pursuing "altruistic" goals like "universal health system", good schools for everybody, social welfare or healthy environment is normally not that effective because the altruistic motivation of people is not as strong. It is not necessarily "learned helplessness" why they fail.

Very often these initiatives come from a negative motivation like "we undertake measures to prevent climate change because we don't want to suffer the consequences". People want a universal health care system because they are afraid to be without help when they get sick. They donate to social welfare because they want to avoid being accused of being ignorant, egoistic or careless.

These motivations are "around the corner" so to speak and much weaker. In order to be successful with altruistic goals there needs to be at least one person who makes it a 100% personal "positive" goal to achieve it.

"Altering the present system of big government" as a goal is very difficult because big government is of course much stronger. Trying to alter it because you feel helpless or overwhelmed in it is again coming from a negative motivation and thus quite weak, may be only nurtured by desperation. It would be better to look at what your true wishes are (like wanting to be free to do something) and go for them 100%. If you really wanted to change big government, you would be studying it in detail, get yourself acquainted with the procedures necessary to do the change and collect people to achieve it.

One has to start with a positive motivation FOR something and I think this is why republicans have been so successful. They have clear motivations FOR stuff, more money, more power, more space, more influence, more research, more weapons, whatever (never saw them wanting less :-), apart from taxes ).

Democrats tend to "not want" certain circumstances and then try to come up with repairing strategies. Something like:

They do not really want a good school system out of a positive motivation FOR educating kids. It's more that they don't want to suffer from the consequences of a lousily educated population so they opt for improving the school system.

Republicans seem to be much more straight forward ( I might be wrong, it just appears that way). They want the best schools for THEIR kids so THEY are competitive, consequently they work their ass off to pay fees for private schools and forget about the rest of the people. This is a strong, clear, "positive" (=unobstructed) motivation. I haven't seen much of this in the "altruistic" section of politics. Many people pay also for a good education, but the motivation is that they "don't want their kids to be in low paying or dragging jobs". Although what they do looks the same, it is not. It has less power and motivation.

Being a little provocative here: people tend to think in an altruistic way because they feel it is cruel to not think that way. But if they had a chance to mind their own business without having to feel guilty for being "careless", they would be happy to forget about all the poor, ugly and dirty sides of the world. That is not a positive motivation FOR a better world.

In that sense I perfectly understand why PT recommends Sarah Palin as a model for a mentor. SP has an absolutely positive = unobstructed personal motivation to grab this chance and get as far ahead as possible with her political career (republican, right?). I still wouldn't make her my mentor, but I understand if somebody with similar interests and mindset would.

Hi all.
I am enjoying the discussion and was just thinking that it's funny that this dialogue began with Penelope's post about Sarah Palin as a mentor. I wonder if SP will ever see this blog? This would be what is known in academia as a "seminal" work, the starting point for a much larger discussion, a`search for truth, regardless of the validity of the original hypothesis. I guess SP would say,"just goes to show, ya never know," or something like that. I hope the discussion doesn't turn out to be like putting one's initials in fresh concrete: they are there for a long time, but no one except for you really gives a damn.
Again I agree with Juki and Chris have said, but I wanted to point out though, before we give SP credit she doesn't(probably) deserve, that Amy B. correctly pointed out the difference between a "role model" and a "mentor," and I agree with her that SP makes a lousy mentor, unless you happen to be attending the Carl Rove/Lee Atwater school of character assassination.

Anyway, I agree with Juki that the motivation for self actualization is generally far more intense and efficient than for altruistic goals.
My own quick and dirty summary of this is also a partisan one: Republicans want to make the world a better place to live in, Democrats want to make the world a better place to live in, for everyone. I suppose I should expand that to include Greens and Independents as well, it just takes away from the conciseness of the definition.

I would suggest though, that with respect to the environmental issues, the gap may be narrower than for other "common good" type issues. Resource Economists study study these motivations under the context of contingent valuation, an attempt to discover how much people will actually pay to, say, protect the spotted owl in the old growth forests, even though they happen to live in a condo next to central park(the people, that is). Placing a value on national parks is another example, how much are you willing to spend(all expenditures included) to visit Yosemite or Acadia National park. If you narrow the choices to between giving the spotted owl a place to live or being put out of your condo, well, let's not be silly here, the owl is dead meat.

My initial thought when talking about altering "big government" was that it was sort of like trying to steal a lot of money: if you try to steal a whole lot from a small number of people, they will notice right off what is going on and will call in the cavalry. But if you steal a really, really, teenie amount each from really, really huge number of people, you'll probably get away with it long enough to get a good head start on whoever finally figures out that they've been ripped off, and you might stash enough away and hide out long enough to get away with it. In our political system, you have to have a really, really large number of pissed off people to have the same effect as a handful of really, really influential(read: deep pockets) people.
So this phenonmenon is being seen in a couple of ways today, the backlash which the republicans are facing politically, and the current financial meltdown, where the plan was working just perfectly until too many scammers got into the game. One can't resist linking the two events, but I believe it is at least possible for them to be independent events, although that is not my opinion of the situation.
A few years back Ralph Nader said that in his opinion, things would have to get really, really bad before enough people paid enough attention to what is going on politically and economically in this country, and actually started to try to do something about it. I am worried that his prediction is about to be realized, and it is very unsettling.
I agree that it is always more effective to act from a position of strength and conviction, and in this country where capitalism has essentially attained religious status, we operate on the basis of the "Golden Rule": He who has the gold makes the rules. So in order for the populace to actually attain the kind of influence enjoyed by the very wealthy individuals and corporate/institutional interests, we practically have to have an uprising of some sorts. Fortunately, I believe that we might be seeing something on that order only it is happening in the context of an election, and at the same time are living through an implosion of our economic staus quo driven exclusively by greed that will expose a large number of crooks and loopholes. Yes, there was plenty of stupidity going around, but stacked up against the greed factor, stupidity was a distant second in terms of causing this fiasco.
Having said that, the most dismaying factor to me is the level of stupidity in this country, given all the resources available to us. Ignorance can be excused because it can be created, by withholding facts from those who need to know them, or spreading false information, but stupidity? I almost think that in this country we have replaced the notion of "Common Sense" with the reality of "common stupidity."
I think that is the dilemna we have to grapple with first, because without people smart enough to see what is good for them, it is just a matter of time before those who cannot distinguish between freedom and license swoop back in again to manipulate us and game the system. I don't know what form of government or leadership will counteract that situation.
Steve C.

Well, I guess I haven't stopped posting, too interesting :-)
Thanks Steve for your last emails, unfortunately I feel I am at a loss in some respects.

First of all: What do you mean with stupidity? Mental incapability to learn something, emotional insensitivity, confusion of consciousness? I have difficulties to look at America as a country "full of stupidity", I always thought that you have quite a few smart people over there. I wouldn't mind if they had different intentions sometimes, but smart they are, no? You wrote that capitalism has become almost a religion in your country. I consider capitalism to be a kind of outer expression of an inner "disease" which results in people behaving in a stupid way and doing stupid things with respect to their own and other peoples and organisms lives, including the Earth. I would call it a mixture of "disconnection from their natural instincts and impulses" and "confusion about who they are as humans" + a decent amount of self hatred. The reason why I am asking is that, in order to "counteract" anything by a government, you need a clear understanding of the problem and "stupidity" is just too general to come up with any solutions, at least for me.

You wrote:
"So in order for the populace to actually attain the kind of influence enjoyed by the very wealthy individuals and corporate/institutional interests, we practically have to have an uprising of some sorts."

That is the normal American way of looking at it, fight and "overrun the enemy". Another possibility would be to "reduce the populaces susceptibility to the 'influence' of money and thus wealthy individuals or institutional interests".
I understand that money has the status of a fetish in capitalism, which means it has power over all people who believe in 'it having power'. That is part of the disease I mentioned above. Thus, people who have money have power over those people who believe that money has power. Resolving this illusion is much easier then "gaining the same influence as wealthy institutions" because the latter involves extra struggle. First of all you have to attain money and then you have to fight against their resistance towards you to gain influence with it. Ever tried Aikido? It is especially effective for people who are weak as it uses the power of the powerful to end the fight. The power of wealthy people is not coming from the money they own, but from their ability to induce into or keep up illusions in people, for example that "money has power". What it would need is to grow the ability in people to "uncover illusions" and let this illusionary power "go pop".

You wrote:
Republicans want to make the world a better place to live in, Democrats want to make the world a better place to live in, for everyone.

I think that is not true. Democrats also want to make the world a better place to live in for themselves, they just have a different idea of "better". The reason why they are not so successful is in my opinion that they try to reach their idea of "better" inside the same system as the Republicans. But this system strives exactly on destroying what the democrats consider to be "better". They are kind of trying to make a tiger to behave and think like a cow and that doesn't work. What they needed to do is create strategies that are appropriate for cows and at the same time strong enough to keep the tiger out until that guy has found the turn off switch for his insatiable hunger.

About Maine, you wrote:
I forget what the intentions were that started the process, but the result was that wealthy people, exercising their rights to discretionary spending, sucked it up and put off building that bigger boat, or any boat. In the end, most of the boatyards large and small either closed up shop, or drastically reduced operatons, putting the bulk of the workforce out of work.

Sorry, I don't get what happened and how this was possible and what exactly made it a flaw. And I think it would be important to know the intentions behind this measure, intention is everything. Would you mind to explain it to me? I am not an economic, but I really want to understand how these things work. Thank you for your input, great stuff :-).

Hi Juki. I am trying to take the easy way out by simply lumping so many people into the stupid category, as there is so much more going on. It is just the first thing that comes to mind when people clearly indicate that they are selecting the next president based upon the cute glasses that his running mate is wearing, or "ooh, I just love her, she's so cute, where did she get those shoes? I'm voting for McCain." It really begs for the stupidity response.
Here the election seems to take on many of the same characteristics as a sporting event. This is complicated by being mislead and manipulated by media, all of whom have some hidden or not so hidden agenda or motivations. It really is difficult to know who is telling the truth, how much of what is being said is really opinion versus fact. A lot of people invest a lot of money and time and energy into these elections and they have no qualms whatsoever about lying and cheating to get their candidate into office, or keep a candidate out of office. These are the ones here who are not confused and know exactly what they are doing, and you are very correct about this.
The biggest problem is that no one else is really able to find or figure out what it is that they are really after, or no one has the time, energy, or wherewithall to get at the truth. Vice President Dick Cheney is a prime example of this.
Here is a Vice President who refuses to release documents revealing who he communicated with and what his office actually did regarding some major actions by his office, one of which was purging the Justice Department of lawyers who refused to participate in political witch-hunts designed to undermine democratic candidates around the country. This on-going rules dispute has already resulted in the resignation of the U.S. Attorney General, and is really just the tip of the ice-berg in terms of the influence his office has had on the actions of this country throughout the country and the rest of the world.
I believe you are correct in that much of what ails the people in our country is inner-angst and self-loss, a disconnect from a more natural life, and all would benefit from an immersion in Aikido or yoga. However, I think we would be lucky to wean the populace of a steady diet of junk food and fast-food, let alone get them involved in a discipline like Aikido. I would venture to guess that switching from one fad diet to another would be the extent to which we find our general populace delving into structure and training. There are many who do strive for a more connected life, but I am certain that they are greatly outnumbered by the MacDonalds/Jerry Springer crowd(do you see this TV show there?). Unfortunately, now we are constantly confronted by ads from the pharmaceutical companies peddling drugs to do the job for us. These companies develope drugs and then invent diseases and ailments to treat them with.
We also have a real problem here with the blurring of the line between entertainment and reality, I think.
The taxation issue in Maine was designed to transfer money from the coffers of the wealthy into the coffers of the state where it presumably could be redistributed for the greater good. The wheels fell off when the wealthy refused to participate, by deferring their consumption, or simply taking it elsewhere. My point is that in this country, it is politically possible to undertake a program such as this, no matter how ill-founded or ill-advised the program is, and with plenty of resources and expertise available to clearly forsee the likely result. Somebody lobbied for this, somebody opposed it, it was passed, an in the end, everyone in Maine lost out. I'm not advocating against taxing the wealthy, but rather to do it in a way that doesn't harm the contituency you are intending to help, and actually gets the money from those who have it.
So the comment about our system/country being complex and unwieldy is really quite valid, in spite of the fact that, like the horses we talked about, our very basic individual needs are pretty much the same. I think we invent a lot of needs, or have them invented for us by marketers and advertisers. We are constantly bombarded by marketing and advertizing in this country, no matter what media you choose to get your information from, but from television especially. So it is unfair to denigrate Americans on this basis alone, but there is a significant "dumbing down" effect happening in our country

75%(give or take a few %) of the econonmic activity in this country is consumption based, buying shoes and cars and stuff, as well as entertainment, so there is a lot at stake here for retailers and entertainers and the people who work for them, as`well as for the governments(supposedly us) who tax them. That's where a lot of this angst comes from. For many, shopping is the release that brings the sense of well-being others get from yoga or drugs or alchohol. It is a circular economic system, where the same dollar gets moved around among the participants, counted and spent many times. There is some leakage or syphoning as every dollar that comes in is not immediately re-directed into consumption, but you get the picture. When the dollars stop circulating, a lot of stress gets generated very quickly, witness our current economic malaise.
It is not all bad of course. At least we have the ability to have these dialogues, and don't get beat up for voicing our choices ala Zimbabwe. But still, ours is a very large and unwieldy system, almost seeming chaotic at times. For better or worse, this country runs on dollars and ideology, and it is unfortunate but true that for many, the only time they really pay attention(no pun intended), is when their pocketbooks are empty.
Steve C.

Hello Steve, thanks for your reply. You wrote:
"The biggest problem is that no one else is really able to find or figure out what it is that they are really after, or no one has the time, energy, or wherewithall to get at the truth."
So that would be the first thing to tackle, getting a clear picture of how the truth really looks like and then spread it so at least those people who are interested in the truth can judge who is telling the truth and who is not. As you seem to be a culture that is hooked on entertaining, make it entertaining to find the truth. Why not start a TV programm? Something like "Truth about…(financial system, political system, meat production, candidates etc.). And then you could have a quiz where people can answer questions like: is it true that…. Would train everybody's sense of reality. Just joking :-)
"We don't engage in debates or disputes to get at the truth any more, we do it to win."
I think everybody can do differently. If one journalist asks questions that are really focussed on truth, it will be hard for the politicians to concentrate on winning. Problem is, why looking for truth if you can make money just by winning? It would be those who loose out who would need to find the truth, but they don't have "time, energy or wherewithall" to get there, as you said. If I ever tackle the truth about the money system, I would be really happy, but probably also broke.
Otherwise I feel that the system is the same everywhere, it is just the degree of "freedom" for the tiger that might be still different between the countries. I mean, controlling for banks has been much stricter in Europe than in the States, also credits are not easy to get without own capital base. But nevertheless, banks have trouble now because some did buy into the illusion of "winning" more and more money. .
With respect to McCain and his hidden wish to fly back to Vietnam, there is an interesting book about "re-enacting trauma" called "Waking the tiger, healing trauma" by Peter A. Levine. You could be right about this, there is actually a chance that we are at the moment collectively re-enacting the trauma of last century economic crisis and 2 world wars, unless people wake up and resolve it instead. Penelopes remark in the latest post about "Nothing goes at Wall Street when Jews are off for Yom Kippur" is so incredibly "last century stuff" that it knocked my socks off.
Thank you for the interesting conversation and lets see how it continues from here. I am gone for a week now, so good luck with finding truth :-).

George, thanks for straightening me out on that. Sorry to tag your name all over that. How is it that I associate that tax with you when it was a Bush who rolled it out? I should snap off all my fingers.
Steve C.

In your post you state that not taking risks and getting out there might be what is holding some back from the career that they think they deserve and are capable of achieving. That’s certainly a fair point. But, surely you should recognize that many people don’t want to “get lucky” or get plucked from oblivion to do a job one is incapable of doing. Most people PREFER hard-fought battles where only their most lucid and creative thinking ensures triumph. Sarah Palin has not shown us anything but a recitation of facts and figures, many of which are misleading, and most of which she herself probably does not believe.

Simply guessing the correct spelling of a word at the spelling bee that the moderator leaked to you in advance does not guarantee that you can use it extemporaneously in a sentence.

Responding to Brandon:

Yes, Brandon, it seems as if you're describing bluffing. I, for one, would always want to be on firmer ground; and certainly would not rely on bluffing when the stakes are so high. (Bluffing happens on the job and at the job interview, too.)

CAK

Wow, not sure where to start with this post. It's quite unfortunate that you've brought politics into play…I was (I'm unsubscribing after this post) a loyal reader of this blog because it provided unique insight into career management and issues. I am just perplexed by your notion that Palin "rocked". She wavered between ~3 extremely superficial talking points, demonstrated a tremendous lack of depth, and also a dearth of intellect and curiosity. I was seriously considering voting for McCain prior to his VP choice. Adeo "Brazen Careerist"…

Moxie is exactly the reason why she is so horrible, she is at a level where she doesn't even know what she doesn't know. That is a profoundly shameful state to be in for a VP candidate. I know you like her because people like you see yourselves in her (clueless and batting your eyelashes through life), its affinity politics.

This is ridiculous and I just lost a bit of respect for you, Penelope.

But I will still read your blog. (with a more careful eye)

@ Pete

Who's husband is a member of a militia type organization that advocates secession from the United States?

Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska.

Who has given speeches at the above organization, in support of their mission?

Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska.

Who is accused of abuse of power while in office?

Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska.

Need I say more? Stones can be cast at anyone and innuendo is usually the recourse of those without supporting facts.

My2centsworth.

This is really intriguing advice! I always try to study people at work – particularly peers and leaders – who make me uncomfortable. I study contrary examples more than examples of people who are just like me. Because only studying those who are like yourself leads to entrenched thinking and stunts growth, and is sort of like selectively finding evidence to fit your hypothesis in order to ensure you prove your hypothesis true.

@ Traci.
At first blush, I agree…but then, big balls, big ego, what's the difference, really? Apparently, picking off incumbent politicians in Alaska is alot like shooting fish in a barrel, a factor that should not be overlooked in Palin's rise to prominence. I'm surprised we haven't heard more about who she defeated to become mayor of Wasilla, what the history was there. That she flatters so many because they identify with her is really another opiate of the masses: Hope springs eternal; I'm like her, I can turn my life around and be successful too, that sort of thing. Although I would vote for McCain and Palen if the only other realistic choice was Bush and his handlers, we can do so much better. Aways back in this post, Dale complained that she probably wouldn't be any worse than Dan Quayle was. Now that's what I call playing to the lowest common denominator.
Steve C.

Fox news eh? Wow, that's a real stunner. I'm sure it will be challenging for her.
Steve C.

@ Mark W.
So you have spoken to these journalists who were not willing to make the trip to Alaska to do the interview and therefore failed to get the interview? A grueling red-eye flight? Really?? Come on, you can't seriously expect anyone to buy that, can you? The republicans just got their butts waxed because they still think this country is gullible enough to take that kind of drivell seriously. Greta Van Susteren got the interview because she is a Fox reporter(the TV equivalent of a Rush Limbaugh), she will handle Palen with kid gloves, and will give Palen a chance to memorize her answers after she gets a transcript of the questions well beforehand. Amazing.
Steve C.

@ Mark W.
Thanks for the info and the link. I believe Sarah Palen will be preaching to the choir.
Steve C.

@Steve C. -
OK, so now we have Amanda Carpenter's biography. It's her take on why Greta was able to interview Sarah before the other journalists. As far as Greta handling Sarah with kid gloves – that remains to be seen. You say "…and will give Palen a chance to memorize her answers after she gets a transcript of the questions well beforehand." Neither one of us knows this to be true or not. Also Sarah's last name is spelled Palin and not Palen.
The funny thing is this whole dialog was started by me announcing Sarah would be on Fox News and that evidently immediately signaled to you "kid gloves". Well that's how I felt when the mainstream media reported on Obama. It seems as though everyone has their own spin and agenda. The news is biased in some way regardless of the source. It's the reason why I read and listen to all of it.

@Steve C.
I can't say I love Sarah Palin to death. However I look forward to her interview with Greta to see what she has to say after this election. Also I'll be interested to see how well she is able to maintain her composure and image after this defeat. I'm looking at Sarah Palin more from the angle of the message from Penelope's post rather than her political views. I'm not going to argue politics here with you. It's not why I read and comment on this blog. I do my best to comment within the scope of the original post.

I think you made some good points in your post.