I am reluctantly commenting on the current election cycle publicly because of the contentious nature of this election campaign. This is also a condemnation of the state of freedom of speech in our country – it is virtually non-existent given the climate and the collaboration of the left lean of the media.
You would think in our culture of openness and tolerance, putting emphasis on diversity, that this would not be the case. Unfortunately, there is a narrative that fits within an agenda, and both pieces are delivered nightly via the major media outlets and the “re-education” camps – also known as our public school system and university system. The political correctness framework does not allow for free thought to be publicly expressed but instead stifled and pushed underground. Anyone who strays from the herd, is condemned and ostracized.
In a digital world, this could lead to a digital form of “death”; at the very least a damnatio memoriae where you will be struck from the records forever and instead labeled permanently and shamed forever. This is another reason why so many, despite their overwhelming beliefs otherwise, have chosen to stay silent and stand by until they can cast their votes and let the results set into place.
Yet it is this chilling effect which suppresses us all. True freedom cannot be lived in a vacuum and true freedom cannot exist without consequences. So it is in the name of freedom, and support of the freedom of expression, that I have chosen to make my voice heard here – if only meekly.
We have a genuine historical moment right now – and not just within the United States, but globally. The pendulum has swung back from a bureaucratic globalized machine government that sees people as commodities to be traded back and forth to a nationalistic fervor that hasn’t brewed since the beginning of the 20th century. Nationalism is a dirty word to the globalized crowd; the very ones who lecture and criticize everyone else for thinking small-mindedly and helplessly clutching to their national identities as something veritable and real. Yet, how can we have diversity without a tolerance for difference?
Moral relativism also teaches error. It is built on a shoddy foundation of intellectualism which works like a kitten batting at a ball of yarn. It is simply meant to be an exercise in entertainment, not an actual belief system that crystalizes into an ideology. Relativism states that all things are relative to the individual and that there are not overarching beliefs that we all can agree upon and recognize. This flies in the face of logic and, at the very least, contradicts a very important document for globalists and that is the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR). Relativism also teaches that all cultures are good and that none are “bad” because, good and evil are simply social constructs anyway. This, of course, is a fallacy as well.
It is intellectualism that creates this sense of elitism that plagues societies. It creates the notion that a prerequisite for leadership is intelligence, and that intelligence is only held by the few. It creates a class structure of “haves and have nots” whereby the “haves” have high IQs and are touched by something ineffable and unobtainable by the hoi polloi. It creates distance. Its creates abstraction. Both of these things create bad leaders which result in bad societies further resulting in leadership that does not represent the will of its people – who are their true sovereigns. Leadership is about service, not about empowerment. Without this simple contract in place, leaders are due to fail.
Which brings me to this election cycle. There are three types of leaders – good ones, great ones, and bad ones. Good leaders lead by example – they lead because they have walked the walk and others will respect them for that. This is admirable, but a slow medicine for a society in deep need of good leaders – such a society will have to wait for the right ones, with the right experiences, to present themselves. This requires synchronicity and a perfection of timing.
Bad leaders are easy to spot – they compel others to follow. They do this by force. They compel with threats and laws, basically using negative reinforcement to force their perception of behavior through. The root of this is an intellectual elitist cache whereby the leaders know what is “good” for the rest of the population and, since they do not see it, will compel others to follow through creating drastic consequences for those that choose not to obey.
Then there are great leaders – they inspire others to action. This does not preclude that the leader has had to experience everything in order to acquire the ability to lead. No, great leaders have a way of motivating others to being or becoming better selves than they were. Great leaders simply provide an example, a guide, to light the way for others. They don’t lecture because, they don’t have to. They don’t pass frightening laws or loads of reforms in order to force a society to submit to their will. Instead, great leaders choose to serve and in the wake of this service, they inspire others to follow and do their best to serve others as well.
This election is a clear choice between a bad leader and a potentially great one. The corruption and scandal that surrounds one candidate is overwhelming. The other candidate has a challenging personality that can be abrasive to many. On moral grounds, there is no equivocation. Being corrupt is damaging by principle; it taints the very essence of the individual with a clear motivation of self-interest and will only surround oneself with people who fulfill the roles of commodities. This network will not be fabricated with the sinews of loyalty, but instead held together through leverage and convenience. Such assets will only to be tossed aside when no longer useful. It is the result of a scheming mind, a diabolical thinker that wants to drain value from everyone around them. To follow a corrupt leader is to fall into a black hole whereby everything will be tainted. It is a contagion. There is no accountability or responsibility save for preservation of the self. This is not a mindset of service and certainly not one who could aspire beyond the level of bad leadership.
Compare that with an abrasive personality that doesn’t seem to show much shame or remorse. Such a personality would not reveal an essence to be wholly damning; it is simply a facade, a surface layer of identity revealing itself. Could it be vanity? Yes, very much so. Yet, someone who lacks shame and has vanity is not necessarily precluded from being a good leader, let alone a great leader. It depends on the motivation that propels that individual. This is where most get identifying leadership wrong – they want to ascribe the position to the most morally resolute of us all or perhaps the “smartest” of us all. During times of leadership, there will be instances where morals will be challenged and the good of the many would outweigh the personal morals of the individual at hand. This is not to make light of morals, rather to demonstrate the inherent difficulties of being a leader. In order to do the right thing for the country, you may have to do something that you are not potentially comfortable with. This also does not require someone to become corrupt, rather to get dirty when it is needed but to have a core set of principles guiding decisions. Such conveniences of morality go out the window in certain situations such as existential struggles for survival. Preservation of the self, or of country, can never be reduced to what is proper and polite – in fact, that is hardly the case. Yet, the overriding drive is to serve the people and to do what is necessary in order to get the job done. A corruptible individual will only do what is necessary to assure the survival of the self and is incapable of service; someone who is willing to push aside their personal moral standards to do what is necessary for the greater good is self-sacrificing and the very spirit that is required by those who lead.
We can also dismiss with the “smarts” argument. Intelligence can lead to a false sense of self whereby we foolishly rely on our intellectual capacity alone to read situations yet what happens when we unknowingly have bad information or dysfunctional thinking processes? And what if we believe ourselves to be the smartest in the room – won’t we also feel threatened by those who are also smart? Such individuals surround themselves with “yes” men and have an echo chamber incubating their decision process. They don’t seek truth but instead confirmation bias. Being smart a strong quality of leadership does not necessarily make.
Perhaps you can read between the lines here. The corruptible personality is Hillary Clinton. I want to make this clear – I am only writing about this from an historical perspective, using the study of the past and human behavior to shape this writing. I cannot attest to anything being true except from my own perspective – take that for whatever it is worth. Yet, this is an historical moment. For a major presidential candidate, 11 days from the general election, to be under investigation by the FBI is unprecedented. To those who support Clinton, they will make light of the situation – out of denial or naivete – in order to not threaten their confirmation bias and pop their echo chambers. Make no mistake, for Director James Comey to reopen this investigation is huge and not done lightly but out of necessity.
The reason why Clinton was most likely not charged before and prosecuted was because this is a situation that could be filed under “too big to fail”. The corruption travels all the way up to the top of the food chain and in order to protect the credibility of our system, a sacrifice must have been made. Perhaps Comey was simply putting aside his personal morals for the good of the people in order to serve. Or, as some have suggested, he is corruptible, too, and only pushed the controversy aside because of quid pro quō. History will reveal that to us soon enough. Which makes the reopening of this Clinton case all that more damaging – if Comey was acting out of interest of the people and made the call to sacrifice his integrity, to reopen this speaks volumes about its necessity. If corrupt, and taken some form of payment, to reopen this means something pretty significant is up. Even Carl Bernstein, an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and journalist who revealed to the world the scandal of Watergate, is saying this is huge.
To speculate is pointless because the facts will be known soon enough. Yet, it is clear that those in law enforcement are not happy about the initial go-round. Investigators saw something big enough to convince Comey to act – and to act now. This is not let’s reopen to see what we have; it is we have established some pretty distinct evidence that is very heavy that necessitates a reopening. The scope of the information is not yet clear. I suspect it involves President Obama who has been running interference for Clinton for a while now. The question is why? Perhaps this scandal is the leverage for doing so.
Here we stand with two choices – a corruptible person who is disingenuous, to say the least, and a non-politician who says precisely what is on his mind and has no shame for doing so. The former will never stop fighting on behalf of self-interest while the latter has already lived a fulfilling life and is genuinely fighting for the right to serve others. We know this because value is found in wealth. Those who exchange value with others, or create more of it for others, come by it honestly and will find themselves rewarded. Those who do not essentially have to steal value from others in order to obtain their worth. Hillary Clinton wants to present herself as the perfect candidate – which is all too scripted, schemed, cold, and calculated. Donald Trump has presented himself as an evolving buffoon but with a genuine mission; he has evolved along the way and it is this quality of service that should earn him more attention.