leadership power

[lemur]

There are currently several leadership discourses that prompt questioning of the ability for official leaders to control their ranks. One is the revocation of "don't ask don't tell" allowing open homosexuality in the military. While Obama seems to be fully in favor of allowing open homosexuality, his "decree" hasn't resulted in immediate deference to his authority. People are resisting. It is interesting to consider military resistance in other contexts as well. For example, we may ask if Gaddafi actually could convince his military to stop fighting the rebels. It has been assumed that he has the power to surrender and abdicate, but why do people assume that the military would accept his orders if they thought it was not in their interest to do so? We might even ask if Hitler had the power to stop WWII and the holocaust occurring at that time. What if he had lost his nerve and asked others to help him stop what was going on but he was told that it was too late and "the job had to be finished." What do you do as a leader when you want to exercise your power to go against "the flow" of popular opinion? Is it actually ever possible for individuals, regardless of rank, to control multitudes of people against their will? Or is rank and official leadership a symbolic position that assigns responsibility to a single prestigious individual?

[imatfaal]

I am not up to date on modern US law and politics - but dont ask dont tell absolutely did not mandate open homosexuality - it provided a avenue of executive discretion to look the other way. The act to repeal DADT was passed in a normal way and is not a decree - the President has not yet affirmed that the enaction of the bill will not harm the ability of the armed forces to execute their duty and until he does then it will remain in abeyance. His delay might be seen as Executive power being used over the legislature - but when the armed forces are concerned that is the rule rather than the exception.

 

Your points on Qadafi and Hitler are perhaps more apposite and I tend to agree that he and his senior leadership are in a "group-think" mode and collectively believe they have passed the point of no return. Only those with enormous confidence, personal charisma, and utter self-belief can go against the deluge in critical situations like this - but as in the past both Hitler and Qadafi were described in those terms perhaps no one can really stop the juggernaut of state once it is launched on a dangerous venture.

[lemur]

I am not up to date on modern US law and politics - but dont ask dont tell absolutely did not mandate open homosexuality - it provided a avenue of executive discretion to look the other way. The act to repeal DADT was passed in a normal way and is not a decree - the President has not yet affirmed that the enaction of the bill will not harm the ability of the armed forces to execute their duty and until he does then it will remain in abeyance. His delay might be seen as Executive power being used over the legislature - but when the armed forces are concerned that is the rule rather than the exception.

Sorry if you didn't like the word, "decree." My only point was that Obama doesn't have the ability to make military personnel change their policy as much as people would think, it seems.

 

Your points on Qadafi and Hitler are perhaps more apposite and I tend to agree that he and his senior leadership are in a "group-think" mode and collectively believe they have passed the point of no return. Only those with enormous confidence, personal charisma, and utter self-belief can go against the deluge in critical situations like this - but as in the past both Hitler and Qadafi were described in those terms perhaps no one can really stop the juggernaut of state once it is launched on a dangerous venture.

And that makes it especially interesting why part of the state-discourse is to hold leaders accountable for state-actions as if they indeed controlled the state beyond its own "juggernaut" inertia. ("juggernaut" was a great metaphor, btw)

Edited May 20, 2011 by lemur

[imatfaal]

Sorry if you didn't like the word, "decree." My only point was that Obama doesn't have the ability to make military personnel change their policy as much as people would think, it seems.

 

Rule by decree has a fairly fixed and well understood meaning - and much as I dislike some of the actions of the Whitehouse in the last ten years only a very few have come close to rule by decree. A craven legislature allowed very contentious bills to be passed and they are to be regretted, but these were not executive orders (which is a US form of rule by decree). And my point is that Obama has not yet even attempted to have the bill enforced as he is still to affirm that it will not affect military readiness. This might have changed in the last few months but I believe the bill is still stalled.

 

 

And that makes it especially interesting why part of the state-discourse is to hold leaders accountable for state-actions as if they indeed controlled the state beyond its own "juggernaut" inertia. ("juggernaut" was a great metaphor, btw)

I suppose the metaphor could be extended - the drunk driver is still prosecuted if the damage / injury caused is well after he lost control of his vehicle. If you put something in motion - the responsibility for keeping control is yours

 

 

[lemur]

Rule by decree has a fairly fixed and well understood meaning - and much as I dislike some of the actions of the Whitehouse in the last ten years only a very few have come close to rule by decree. A craven legislature allowed very contentious bills to be passed and they are to be regretted, but these were not executive orders (which is a US form of rule by decree). And my point is that Obama has not yet even attempted to have the bill enforced as he is still to affirm that it will not affect military readiness. This might have changed in the last few months but I believe the bill is still stalled.

But if he considered failing to implement the new policy to enable discrimination on the basis of sexuality, wouldn't he become complicit in such discrimination by failing to use the power of executive decree to force the law through? If he allows the reasoning that allowing open homosexuality hinders the military's ability to operate, wouldn't he essentially be allowing terrorism abroad to dictate domestic freedom? Are the democrats going to do what they so adamantly blamed Bush for doing?

 

I suppose the metaphor could be extended - the drunk driver is still prosecuted if the damage / injury caused is well after he lost control of his vehicle. If you put something in motion - the responsibility for keeping control is yours

And yet the question is whether heads of state can even become heads of state without the inertia of state-mechanisms that install them in those positions in the first place. The question is whether such positions are ever afforded the power attributed to them or whether they are always limited to saying and doing what they are allowed by others to say and do.

 

Try a thought experiment: imagine any possible non-conformist action that could be committed by an individual in a position of institutional leadership. Then imagine all the possible responses from those interested in controlling the institution against "mutiny" by a single individual. How much leeway, then, does any "leading individual" have to "go against the flow" of what is expected from them at any given moment in their career as leader?

 

 

I don't think Obama, Qaddafi, Hilter, or whoever could even escape their assigned post considering their high-profile, let alone get away with actions that would make them unpopular to those in their immediate surroundings with direct power to use against them.

Edited May 20, 2011 by lemur

[imatfaal]

But if he considered failing to implement the new policy to enable discrimination on the basis of sexuality, wouldn't he become complicit in such discrimination by failing to use the power of executive decree to force the law through? If he allows the reasoning that allowing open homosexuality hinders the military's ability to operate, wouldn't he essentially be allowing terrorism abroad to dictate domestic freedom? Are the democrats going to do what they so adamantly blamed Bush for doing?

 

You would have to get a real constitutional lawyer on that one - I would not know the legal consequences of a President confirming an act would not harm state security and military preparedness in the clear knowledge that it would and he was making the affirmation on purely non-military grounds and for party political gain. I don't know what the reasoning is behind the delay. Remember DADT was brought in by Clinton.

And yet the question is whether heads of state can even become heads of state without the inertia of state-mechanisms that install them in those positions in the first place. The question is whether such positions are ever afforded the power attributed to them or whether they are always limited to saying and doing what they are allowed by others to say and do.

Inertia to cause change? Not sure I approve of that one - this is a science forum, perhaps impetus. On a more substantive note - both the leaders you mentioned came to power in opposition to the status quo. I do think that one man or woman can take power and wield it, even today - and, if that is the case, personal responsibility must follow.

Try a thought experiment: imagine any possible non-conformist action that could be committed by an individual in a position of institutional leadership. Then imagine all the possible responses from those interested in controlling the institution against "mutiny" by a single individual. How much leeway, then, does any "leading individual" have to "go against the flow" of what is expected from them at any given moment in their career as leader?

Ask M Dominique S-K - poor attempt at levity. I don't know - but I tend to believe in less power in the apparatus than the press and popular fiction would have it.

I don't think Obama, Qaddafi, Hilter, or whoever could even escape their assigned post considering their high-profile, let alone get away with actions that would make them unpopular to those in their immediate surroundings with direct power to use against them.

Equating Obama here is looking distinctly over the top. Of course Obama could - all he would need to say would be "of course on my Kenyan Birth certificate ..." Whilst any Chief Exec is in a position that requires compromise - to belittle their power is not correct. My least favourite British PM - Maggie Thatcher seemed to take a perverse delight in finding the biggest, toughest targets both within and without Government. It's a generational replaying of the new kid at school going up to the biggest bully and thumping him - declaration of the new alpha male (or female in her case...perhaps)

[DJBruce]

My only point was that Obama doesn't have the ability to make military personnel change their policy as much as people would think, it seems.

 

I think that it is important to distinguish between policy and personal opinion. President Obama recently changed the militaries official policy so that open homosexuality would be allow, and he has succeeded in changing the military's official policy. However, an organization's official policy does not define what the members of the organization do or believe, and it does not even necessarily define the atmosphere of the group as a whole. President Obama can change policy, but he -like all presidents- has very little power to change the culture of a group of people with out dramatic actions. So I would not consider him failing for being unable to force those in the army to create an atmosphere where open homosexuality is accepted. The official policy of the federal government since the 1870's is that African American's are equal in their civil liberties, however, we all know that these polices did not mean that African Americans were not discriminated against.

[lemur]

Inertia to cause change? Not sure I approve of that one - this is a science forum, perhaps impetus. On a more substantive note - both the leaders you mentioned came to power in opposition to the status quo. I do think that one man or woman can take power and wield it, even today - and, if that is the case, personal responsibility must follow.

You seem to be assuming that all deviations from "the status quo" are equally unpopular. I'm not sure about Qaddafi, but Hitler simply tapped into a national-socialist culture that was already popular (populist to be specific) but just not the institutional-political status quo of the time. Actually, come to think of it I did read that Qaddafi was very popular as a "hero of the people" to begin with. So-called 'powerful' leaders are rarely dissidents against anything that hasn't already become unpopular. If an individual pursued an agenda that was totally unpopular, their attempt would get thwarted.

 

 

 

So I would not consider him failing for being unable to force those in the army to create an atmosphere where open homosexuality is accepted. The official policy of the federal government since the 1870's is that African American's are equal in their civil liberties, however, we all know that these polices did not mean that African Americans were not discriminated against.

But then why would you consider President Bush a failure for failing to stop a culture of military disobedience, torture, wire-tapping, etc.? If anything, by making these issues public instead of secret, Bush administration policies opened them up for discussion instead of leaving them as skeletons in the closet. If this new policy on sexual openness goes through, homophobia and sexual expression are just likely to go deeper underground, at least for many people I'm sure that will be the case. Of course, I would support any policy that supports freedom of expression but in practice, I think people may respond to it with covert discrimination, as you say. Hopefully most people will do the right thing and recognize that same-sex love is no different than love between men and women, but I'm afraid provocations and reactions to provocations will occur.

 

 

[Marat]

All sorts of public political authorities, judges, administrative panel members, etc. are protected from civil liability for what they do on the legal theory that these are all 'official acts of state' and thus cannot be treated as acts where personal responsibility accrues. If there were not that protection, a state leader who made a political decision to underfund national healthcare might be accused of negligent homicide for letting people die without adequate medical care, or a judge who condemned the wrong man to life imprisonment could be sued for false imprisonment, etc.

 

I think that anyone who becomes the leader of a nation just becomes the sock puppet which fits over the pinnacle of the national ideology, taking on its shape, so he really has very little personal power or control, but just does what the huge, underlying culture below him mutely commands. That's why I warned friends of mine who were packing their bags to go to the U.S. to help elect Obama that they were wasting their time, since however good Obama might be personally, he would essentially just be limited to being a reflection of the kind of country the United States already is. It's obviously an illusion to think that any one person, or even the 500 people who constitute the government in Washington, could command a nation of 330,000,000 to be anything other than it already wanted to be.

[lemur]

All sorts of public political authorities, judges, administrative panel members, etc. are protected from civil liability for what they do on the legal theory that these are all 'official acts of state' and thus cannot be treated as acts where personal responsibility accrues. If there were not that protection, a state leader who made a political decision to underfund national healthcare might be accused of negligent homicide for letting people die without adequate medical care, or a judge who condemned the wrong man to life imprisonment could be sued for false imprisonment, etc.

 

I think that anyone who becomes the leader of a nation just becomes the sock puppet which fits over the pinnacle of the national ideology, taking on its shape, so he really has very little personal power or control, but just does what the huge, underlying culture below him mutely commands. That's why I warned friends of mine who were packing their bags to go to the U.S. to help elect Obama that they were wasting their time, since however good Obama might be personally, he would essentially just be limited to being a reflection of the kind of country the United States already is. It's obviously an illusion to think that any one person, or even the 500 people who constitute the government in Washington, could command a nation of 330,000,000 to be anything other than it already wanted to be.

And yet there is nothing causing collective inertia besides the actions of individuals. Isn't it ironic?

 

edit: btw, please don't think that somehow only people with US citizenship cause the US to be the way it is.

Edited May 21, 2011 by lemur