How do values impact leaders and the decision leaders make? How do you believe your own values impact your decisions, and your own leadership practice?

             In our reading values, value assumptions and ethics were discussed, as were real values and idea values.  I believe that leaders today focus more on idea values, “a value that you believe to be right and good,” than real values, “a value that you believe to be right and good and consistently act upon in your life” (Diestler, 39).  If we look at our leaders in Washington, they are convinced that national health care is a “right and good” policy for the public.  However, they will be keeping their own health policies that are better than the general public’s plans.
             We can see a decline in values in our leaders as they trade their votes for benefits for their own states.  It seems that the only concern is re-election, and that as a value is damaging to the country as a whole.  In fact, the citizens of many of these states are disgusted with this type of leadership and are voicing their values to the Congressional representative in their area.
              I tend to make my decisions based upon real, Biblical values.  Although I tend to think in the broader sense of values, “those ideas, standards, and principals you believe are important and consider worthy” (Diestler, 32).  If I am to make a decision that will impact my family or community that decision must be one I believe in and can live by.
Do you believe you can have a different set of values for your personal life and public life or do you believe each person is influenced by one set of values?

            In the past I might have said no.  However, in recent history, it seems that you can.  I have always found President Bill Clinton an interesting individual, the type of guy I would like to sit around with, drink a beer and just discuss life.  Clinton has a great compassion for people and knew where he wanted to take the country.  While I may not have agreed with some of his policies his values were not too out of step with the majority of the country.
            However in his private life, at least in what is known of it, he seems to be a bit of a cad.  There are shady business dealings, some abuses of power, and, to say the least, a respect for women.  Yet through it all he was able to compartmentalize his private values from his public values and get much done, until the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  Today Clinton is possibly even more popular now than when his was in office.  Past and current presidents turn to him for advice or to help in a crisis.  It could be argued that Clinton was able to successfully govern with two different sets of values.
            On the other hand, the jury is still out on Tiger Woods.  Many considered Woods a great role model, family man and all around good guy.  That was of course before this car accident in November.  Once the lid was blown off his personal life, everyone was shocked at how they had been fooled by Woods. There were calls from women’s groups to drop Tiger as a spokesman for various advertisers.  Sports commentators began to ask if golf could survive without Tiger Woods.     In some circles there were concerns about how Tiger’s activities would affect the stock market. 
             Perhaps Tiger will be able to rehabilitate himself and save the planet, but I find the outcry in regards to Tiger interesting compared to the lack of outrage geared towards President Clinton as a candidate, and then as president.  What does that say about our values?  Advantage Clinton as he at least seems approachable?
Do you believe your values change? How? Why?

            I believe a person’s values change as they grow older and experience life.  I am not the same person I was thirty years ago as a teenager.  While my core values haven’t changed I am more willing to listen and try to understand were the other person is coming from in their beliefs.               
            Perhaps, as you grow as a person, there a willingness to listen to others and an understanding that you can be wrong in some of your thinking. If values are a combination of right and good, and considered worthy, then as you re-evaluate your life or circumstances change, it is possible that some of your values will change.
Do you see a connection between values and critical thinking? Describe.

            There is a connection between values and critical thinking.  As discussed in our reading, “A critical thinker is someone who uses specific criteria to evaluate reasoning, form positions, and make decisions” (Diestler, 2).  Without critical thinking and values it becomes difficult to become a good decision maker.
            Tiger Woods may have an excellent value system, but poor critical thinking lead to disastrous decision making.    The groups that are trying to get help to Haiti for the survivors of the earthquake will need a combination of both values and critical thinking to make decisions to do the most good, in the most efficient way.

           Perhaps the most important issue being discussed today is “climate change.”  The decisions made in Washington D.C. will impact our lives for the foreseeable future.  Both sides have a “you’re for us or against us” tone.  The great difficultly for the citizens of the country is that the rhetoric of both sides doesn’t help them come to a reasoned opinion.  A hard look at the communication ethics used by the leaders of each position in needed to understand how we may be being manipulated.

What ethical criteria, standards or perspectives are being applied?

            Those that support the idea of climate change believe they hold the moral high ground.  As protectors of nature and humanity, it is their mission to save us from ourselves.  There is a belief in the intrinsic value or inherent worth of the environment, a view that it is valuable in itself.  Some in the environmental movement believe that the Bible commands good stewardship of nature and there are others that believe that the world would be better off without humans.

            Group A, the environmentalists, argue that the signs of man’s impact on the Earth can be seen every day in countless ways.  A few of the favorite examples are the melting icecaps, the rise in temperature, strong thunderstorms, hurricanes and the extinction of thousands of species.  We have a seen the video of the lone polar swimming in the ocean looking for a place to rest, and most likely drowning.  Thousands of leading academics give credence to the climate change argument and no less an authority published the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Report warning of the great danger we face in the very near future.  There is also the
Kyoto Protocol of 1997 that argued for the stabilization of greenhouse gas​ concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent a major global catastrophe.

            Group B, those that don’t believe in global warming or climate change also want to protect the environment.  They also have a belief that man should be a good steward of the planet, however their perspective is that man is not responsible for climate change.  There are scientists on this side of the issues that argue that climate change is cylindrical, and that every 300 years the Earth heats up and cools down on its own.  Other scientists point to sun spot activity (solar variations), or lack thereof for the heating and cooling of the planet.

            The leaders of Group B believe that whatever changes in climate or pollution levels can be corrected by the free market.  It is the belief of this group that any legislation that is passed in the Congress will cripple business, raise unemployment rates and restrict the freedom of all American citizens.  Once again they believe that examples of environmental extremism can be easily seen daily.  Group B points to closed factories, construction and job losses due to the presence of some endangered species stopping production, limits on the type of vehicles that can be manufactures as examples of how nature is favored over humans.  They will also argue that the polar icecaps are expanding and there are more polar bears alive today than at any point in recent history.

Reasonableness and Relevancy

            It is interesting that both sides have valid points and that the majority of their claims are reasonable.  Obliviously both groups can agree that the climate changes, the debate is on whether man is solely responsible or if the temperature changes in three hundred year cycles.  To the
layman, with no interest other than living his life with as little noise as possible, this would seem
to be a starting point for working out a solution to the current problem.

            The difficulty is that both groups in communicating the relevancy of their positions are using fear to get the citizenry motivated.  Group A will paint a picture of impending doom, temperatures in the upper nineties, massive flooding, famine and disease of Biblical proportions.  Group B, using its own set of paints, will paint a dark picture of closed businesses, large unemployment, government mandates that restrict freedom of choice and movement.  Finally they will both stand behind the podium and state, “If we don’t take the steps to stop it now, it will be too late and life as we know it will cease to exist.”

            In an effort to mobilize an apathetic population this type of extreme communication takes priority over reasonableness, as relevancy becomes the main focus.  To get the votes or public outcry needed to pass or stop legislation, or in the case of an elected representative, get re-elected both groups have to motivate their base constituencies.  

Does the communication succeed or fail in measuring up to standards?

            If we were to look emotionally at the two groups we might feel that they are both acting unethically.  A closer look, taking the emotion out of the equation, would show that both groups are acting ethically to get their point of view across.   It is interesting that in most cases the right of the political spectrum criticizes Sal Alinksy’s tactics, but in this effort they seem to embrace them.   In fact both sides are borrowing heavily from Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals to influence the populace.  What follows are a few examples of how Alinksy’s rules are being used by both groups.

            Rule 2, Never go outside the experience of your people. Both groups only use tactics that are familiar to their base groups.  Group A is willing to have protest demonstrations and acts of
civil disobedience, whereas, Group B focuses on letter and email campaigns to Congress.  However the recent Tea Party activities might be the start of a new strategy for groups on the right.

            Rule 5, Ridicule is a man’s most potent weapon. Depending upon your perspective, Group A consists of a bunch of left-wing, tree hugging, environmental fascist hippie nuts and Group B houses ignorant flat earthers, who can’t understand that the debate on climate change is over.  It is difficult to defend against ridicule and is an effective tool take the speaking party off message.

            Rule 8, Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, utilize all events of the period for your purpose.  As can be seen from the recent debate on HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 both sides flooded their respective Congressperson with calls, emails and visits from lobbyists.  Emails were sent to group members urging them to call both local and Washington offices.  The internet has created an entirely new way for groups to disseminate information to one another, as has twitter. 

            During the debate the latest weather facts and figures were tossed about as proof that both sides positions were coming to be.  Unemployment and deficit figures were used by Group B to warn of the dire consequences of passing the legislation.  While Group A displayed on poster boards at the front of the House Chamber the number of green jobs that would be created and how new tax revenue would cut into the deficit. It is obvious that both groups know how to successfully play to their audiences.  While the legislation did pass the House both sides are gearing up for battle in the Senate. 

Rule 9, The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.  Both sides shamelessly demagogue the issue.  A reasonable person would find it hard to believe that New York City would be six feet underwater in fifteen years if this piece of legislation did not pass.  Similarly, the chances of a person believing that “cap and trade” will lead to the government control of all industry are just as unlikely.  Yet both sides continue to successfully paint a dark picture of the world with seemingly little resistance from the general public.

            The threat of Global Warming or Climate Change has actually clouded the perception of many in the public.  A failure to act quickly will lead to the destruction of the Earth; something must be done, and soon.  The other side counters, and many believe, that we are moving too quickly, giving up personal and property rights that the government will never get back. 

            Rule 13, Pick the target, freeze it and polarize it.  In this case Group B has done a much better job at picking the target.  When you think of Global Warming or Climate Change the first person you think of is former Vice-president Al Gore.  The task for Group A is more difficult, mainly because they have been much more effective in getting their message out and Group B is fighting to get on even terms.  The lack of leadership in Group B makes it difficult to demonize one individual.  They have a much more difficult task in trying to freeze and polarize an entire group.
 
           Given that both groups are using a similar communications ethic and both have succeeded in getting their message out to their base, I would tend to believe that they have been relatively successful in measuring up to the standard.  Whether public perception of the issue is correct or not, both groups are motivating their members to become involved.   The
communication is targeted and narrowly focused to get the individuals that will come out and do the work necessary for the group to be victorious in their cause.  The response that is generates is
based more on emotion, rather than the facts.  A call to duty; to protect the planet or protect your
freedoms.
  
To Whom is Ethical Responsibility Owed?

            Ethical responsibility is owed to the group.  We would like to believe that both groups have a responsibility to the public to present the facts to the public.  Actually they are; they are presenting their facts.  They are making an attempt to mold public opinion in their direction.  What is not considered in the groups’ equation is the impact their communicative ethic has on society.

            While each group has to answer to those that are backing it, be the Sierra Club or the Heritage Foundation, it would seem that somewhere the truth should actually be the most important part in the communication process, not the rhetoric.  When we discuss ethical responsibility in an academic sense, ethics takes on a different connotation. For example, most people consider being ethical as telling the truth or doing what is right in a situation.  In our discussion of ethics we mean getting a task done to the best of the organization’s ability, for the express purpose of getting the organization across the finish line first.  .  In Ethics in Human Communication Robert Jackall “found that the pressure of getting ahead contributed to organizational cultures the preference success and efficiency rather than ethics” (Johannesen 157). 

            An example might be former President Bill Clinton.  President Clinton had the ability to compartmentalize.  While many were not happy with his personal conduct, they were happy with his policies and ability to great things done.  It was during his presidency, and I believe it is only his presidency, that there were always two sets of poll numbers, job performance and personal behavior.  Poll after poll would show the President had high job
performance numbers and low numbers for his personal behavior.  While his personal actions didn’t necessarily reflect his policy beliefs, he was an effective and popular president.

            Ethical communication does not necessarily mean ethical action.  Perhaps it should be viewed in a “nothing personal, business is business,” vain.  It could be argued that organized crime is the most ethical in both communication and action.  When the boss explains what he wants done, why and the personal consequences of failure, it is clear what will happen to an individual if he fails in his job.  While this is effective communication, I doubt that this is the model we would like the private and public sector to adopt.

How Do I Feel After This Ethical Choice?

            In my case after studying the facts of Climate Change, I do not consider it to me a entirely man made phenomenon.  It is important to protect the environment.  I have yet to hear the politician that runs on the issues of dirty air and water.  The scare tactics of both sides have clouded the issue to such a degree that many decide based on feelings not fact. 

            In discussions with family, friends and others I feel comfortable with my communication ethics.  While I have a point of view on the subject, I can sleep at night knowing that I am presenting facts, not fear mongering talking points.  There is no name calling, on my part, although I have been called a “denier” by those that believe in climate change. If the goal of communication is to further yours and someone else’s knowledge on a subject, then I feel successful in my efforts. 
 
            It is easier in my case as I am not part of the group that questions climate change.  My one true rant on the subject can be found on Parks Blog, which said, in part,
“I mean really isn't the climate always changing?   I believe that use to be called the ‘Four Seasons.’  Does anyone remember, Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter?   The first Earth Day warned of the coming Ice Age!!   As the political winds changed so did the cause and the attempts by government to limit our freedoms.   We don't need the government and a panel of scientist with a political agenda to tell us what the weather outside our door is, believe it or not we can tell on our own.”
While it may appeal to the group it is my own thoughts and words on the issue.  The piece was successful, in that, those how read it and did not agree were not offended and found parts of it humorous.  The discussions we had we pleasant and non-combative even though we really didn’t change anyone’s mind on the subject.

Coherent Reflection of the Communicator’s Personal Character

            In my opinion it would seem that those that believe in climate change are not acting out of character in their communications.  Vice-President Gore truly believes that “The Earth has a fever” and wants to change the way we live to prevent its destruction.  I, on the other hand, don’t believe in the man-made climate change theory.  It is important to preserve the planet without destroying the rights of the people who live on it.

            The beliefs held are an accurate reflection of our personal character.  Neither of us wants to see the planet destroyed, and believe in conservation.  We want our children and grandchildren to live in a safe environment.  We just disagree on how best to get there.

Resolution Principles

            A true resolution in this debate will never really come to fruition.   First, there is too much political capital that has been spent for either side to back down from their position. Second, the climate change issue is a money maker for too many different organizations, political parties and politicians.  Third, climate change is an excellent wedge issue that politicians can use to run for office or get re-elected.  Fourth, scientists that depend on government money for research will work to get the result needed to keep funding.  Finally, the weather will always be changing allowing both groups to continue exploiting the public for money and votes. 

            If both groups were to engage in the Spirit of Mutual Equality and  “aid each other in making responsible decisions regardless of whether the decision be favorable or unfavorable to the particular view presented” (Johannesen 56).  In doing  so it could be the start of toning down the divisive rhetoric and working for a real solution to some of the environmental problems we face. 

            This might require each side to take a walk in the other’s shoes to see “the reality of the other’s viewpoint” (55).  This type of communicative inclusion could soften the hard line positions of both sides.  For example both groups want to stop our dependence on foreign oil, but can’t agree on how to do it.  Those that believe in climate change want electric cars, solar and wind power.  The other group would like to drill for oil in the United States and build nuclear power plants.

            One possible solution; do both; it will take at least ten years until electric vehicles can
perform the way consumers want them too.  Why not invest in off shore drilling for a limited
time, to lower our dependence on foreign oil supplies while we build the cars of the future?   There would have to be an agreed time frame to accomplish these tasks, so that real results could be seen and oil drilling stopped at the appropriate time.  At least a discussion of this type would give the public a sense that the problem was being worked to a solution.

            The problem with this type of thinking is that many politicians don’t want a solution.  They would prefer to demagogue issues relying, “heavily on propaganda . . . irrelevant emotional appeals pseudoproof to circumvent human rational decision-making process” (114).   As noted earlier, there is a lot of money at stake in climate change and it seems to be easier to get the public engaged in the cause, not the solution.

            Any real work for climate change legislation will be done in any number of committees in the House and Senate.  These small groups if could be successful as long as they keep the conversation focused on the real issue.  The discussions should be “responsive to the subject matter of the conversation and at the same time help establish conditions for the future unrestrained formation of experience” (141).  The experience here would be the creation of rules for debate in both chambers that will allow for real debate and not grandstanding.

            While I don’t see a change in the communication strategies of the climate change groups there is always the hope that the rhetoric will give way to the facts.  John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things” and in this case as stubborn as the positions both sides have taken.  We may never know the true facts of global climate change and if we don’t that means both groups have succeeded for their organizations. 

                        Is that a good or a bad thing?  Academically in may be a good thing.  The rules of
engagement laid out by Alinksy will have worked as planned.  It would seem though that it is abad for the public.  In today’s society many only learn about the issues though sound bites on the news or political shows where the guests scream at each other.  As communication becomes more packaged and specialized the public will be more easily led to the “correct” decision. 

            We can see this happening as organizations do polling and focus groups in an effort to craft their message.  Advertisers, organizations and politicians spoon feed us what we want to hear to sell themselves or their product.  Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass would have four hour debates, in public, on the issues of the day.  Today we are lucky to have an hour and a half with the two presidential candidates.  When we do there is a moderator with prepackaged questions and the candidates are given one minute to respond, thirty seconds for rebuttal.

            The art of communication is dying.  People twitter and text.  High School students are being to write papers the way that they text.  We are sacrificing thoughtful conversation for time.
The entire nation suffers from attention deficit disorder.  If you speak to someone for more than a minute their mind begins to wander, looking for some new stimulus.  If we lose our ability to communicate one on one or in small groups we are doomed as a people.  We will become a nation locked in our rooms punching a keyboard as we keep in touch through Facebook, YouTube or the next great social networking site.  We will be social by being anti-social, hidden away, tucked behind a glowing white screen.
******************************************************************************
Works Cited
Alinksy, Saul D., Rules for Radicals. New York: Vintage Books 1971.
 
Johannesen, Richard L., et al. Ethics in Human Communication 6th Edition. Illinois: Waveland
            Press 2008.
 
Parks, John G. Homepage 02 Feb 09 <http://www.johngparks.com/blog/parksblog/blog.html>
 
 
           
 

            In watching, “The Merchants of Cool,” for a second time I was struck by how the search for cool continues today.  The central themes included the selling of cool to teenager as they have become a force in the consumer market, getting the message out and presenting hip and cool in a timely fashion. It is always interesting to look back and see what was considered cool in the past, as compared to today.  It is a little like looking at old photographs or videos of oneself and wondering, “What was I thinking?”  Looking at how advertising and the culture has changed over the last few years, I believe that we as a society will collectively be asking the same question.

            The documentary advertisers assume that everyone has a need to be cool.  Companies and advertisers believe we as a society, especially young people, feel the need to fit in and be a part of the cutting edge of a trend.  Companies spend millions of dollars searching for “the look.”  Then based on a small sampling they try to convince everyone that this is the next big thing.  It is a chicken or the egg issue.  Which came first the cool look or being cool in the cool look?

            The problem in developing and maintaining the market place culture is that, with teens, it is constantly changing. I was reminded at times of The Beatles movie, “A Hard Day’s Night.” In the film a market researcher grabs George Harrison, not knowing he is a Beatle, and begins to show him “what’s hip” and “what he’ll want to be wearing in two weeks.” The researcher calls his model, Susan, the “resident teenager” and becomes upset when Harrison calls her a bore and tells him the guys, “turn the sound down and say rude things about her.” It was an example of adults trying to make the latest teen trend.

            Similarly in “The Merchants of Cool,” Sprite attempted to make their “uncool” drink cool by using a famous spokesperson to make fun of the famous spokesperson commercial.  While at first it worked, the kids finally caught on to the fact they were not part of the inside joke, but the inside joke.  It also didn’t help with the massive cross promotions with MTV and various musical artists.  The cool channel began to channel the old advertising executives that the teens didn’t find cool or trust.

            The value of marketing to teenagers is not new. In fact given today’s market place a good to great company must find a way to tap into this revenue source. What is new though is the amount of advertising exclusively focusing on the age group. In the Sixties teens didn’t have much disposable income, today teens have guilt income. Guilt income flows to today’s teens because the parents feel guilty because they have to work, don’t want to spend time, or don’t know how to spend time with their teens, or feel guilty because their teen isn’t keeping up with his or her friends in owning the latest gadget.

            Perhaps this is a consumer “Hedgehog” effect.  The consumer is passionate about being cool, “What are you deeply passionate about” (Collins 118), and cannot be cool without the latest Nike shoes, “The key is to understand what your organization can be the best in the world at, and equally important what it cannot be the best at” (118) and finally what drives this individuals need to be cool, “What drives your economic engine” (118).  So, just as the Hedgeog Concept drives a good to great company; the Hedgehog Effect can drive the uncool to cool.  This may be what is driving advertisers to push the idea of cool to the great unwashed masses.

            Never before have companies had the technology to get their messages out.  Today the television is on twenty-four, seven.  Almost everyone owns a computer and with that the ability to belong to numerous social networks.  The constant communication between people via Twitter or any of a number of iPhone applications keeps everyone tuned in to what is going on.  There are advertisements at movie theatre, during the movies with creative product placement, and even on the DVDs you rent or purchase.  Want to know the latest trend or hot product, connect to the internet.

            As Jim Collins points out in Chapter Eight, “The good to great companies use technology as an accelerator of momentum, not the creator of it” (162). Given how technology is constantly changing how we live and communicate, a company has to know which types of technology will be of benefit to them. Just because something is “new and improved” doesn’t necessarily mean that it is better. A known entity that can continue to move the company forward is better than risking the growth of a company by hoping the latest fad will create momentum.

            The problem with much of today’s society is that we want to be cool, regardless of our age.  Scientific advances and changes in lifestyles are keeping people alive longer, often with a better quality of life than previous generations.  While on the face of it, this may not seem to be a problem, but in the way that the marketplace reacts to this change has created changes in the types of products sold and how they are advertised.

            We are so use to being bombarded with thirty second commercial spots that our attention spans are such that we expect everything to be presented to us in nice short quips and stories.  We have lost our ability to focus for more than thirty seconds at a time. It seems that advertising
has created the “bumper sticker mentality’ or “sound bite response.”  Is this lack of patience on the television in some small part responsible for our want for instant gratification and road rage?

            There is a need to be constantly entertained and because of this advertising has become art. If we were to look at the amount of money spent in making and broadcasting just during the Super Bowl it is fairly obvious that advertising is almost a mini movie making industry. Just like the movies of today, our commercials focus on sex and, in the case of video games, violence. Consumers almost prefer being entertained as opposed to informed; this could also be a commentary on today’s news channels. 

            Marcel Danesi discusses how art is indistinguishable from life (177) and how through stories we can relate to one another.  We tell stories to get our ideas across and, sometimes, influence people to come to our way of thinking. Stories can be a shared experience where, while I was not there, I can relate to what happened as something similar once happened to me. 

           In marketplace communications, stories are used to get us to buy a product or service. We may see a story of a harried housewife preparing for a family visit, and she is using a product that not only cleans the floor, but ceiling fans as well. She manages to get everything set just as her parents, in-laws, cousins and Aunt Bess ring the doorbell. While our experience may be slightly different, we understand the hassle of cleaning and getting ready for a family visit.  Therefore, I may buy this magical product to make my life easier. That is beauty of advertising.  We all strive to be cool, or own the cool product. Even as we age, we let the marketplace dictate what it is we need, whether we want it or not.

            As we become more connected we need to become aware that, “Google is changing our societies, our lives, our relationships, our worldviews, probably even our brains in ways we can only begin to calculate” (Jarvis 231).  The marketplace in an attempt to get us to purchase their product or service has aimed towards our vanity, our sexual appetites and our need to belong to a group.  Instead of elevating our view of society advertisers have rushed to the bottom, presenting our young people as sex hungry brats and demeaning women, and present men as incompetent boobs.

            The internet can now present these images, unfiltered, around the clock to anyone who has an internet connection.  Much like when television was first introduced as an educational resource, the internet has been heralded in much the same fashion.  Yes both can be used for positive purposes, yet the advertisers in marketplace diminish the positive possibilities. 

            In time we may be living in Philip K. Dick’s “Minority Report” world, where advertisers can gear their commercial directly to the individual.  One day as we walk through the mall we too might experience, as Tom Cruise did, store fronts calling out to us by name, 3-D ads directly changing commercials to suggest products we might be interested in and, of course, stopping crimes before they happen.

            Regardless of where technology and advertising take us, ultimately it is our responsibility to see that used to improve our lives.  There was a time when corporate leaders had an interest in preserving social standards, and offer some inferred moral leadership.  Companies would not sell certain products to teens, or young people, they would have a standard of advertising that while it wasn’t Shakespeare, spoke to the common decency of a community.  Today, it seems, companies rush to the lowest common denominator to advertise and sell product.  While it is easy to be satisfied with good, it benefits us all when we strive for great. 

Works Cited

Collins, James. Good to Great. New York: HaperCollins, 2001.

Danesi, Marcel. Of Cigarettes, High Heels, and Other Interesting Things.  

NewYork: Palgrave MacMillan, 1999.

Jarvis, Jeff. What Would Google Do? New York: HarperCollins, 2009.

Since the first caveman picked up a stick to defeat his opponent, man has continually searched for more effective ways to win wars.  Advances in technology that in many ways were created to make life easier often morph into weapons and tactics the more efficiently kill human beings.  To the politician the solider is a pawn on a huge chessboard, to scientists they are lab rats and to the citizens of nations soldiers are the oft forgotten protectors of freedom.  While leaders promise peace and an end to war, they continue to create for the soldier hell on Earth.

            At the turn of the Twentieth Century war was still a pretty simple affair.  Wars were fought on the ground and sea where the battling sides could see one another.  The airplane and automobile were new and promised quicker transportation.  The cavalry was still an important part of a nation’s standing army. 

            After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo author John Keegan in his book, The First World War, describes the mobilization of the militaries in this way, “

Horses, like men, were mustering in the hundreds of thousands all over Europe in the first week of August.  Even Britain’s little army called up165,000 mounts for the cavalry and draught animals for the artillery and regimental transport waggons.  The Austrian army mobalised 600,000, the German 715,000 the Russian-with its twenty-four cavalry divisions-over a million. The armies of 1914 remained Napoleonic in their dependence on the horse; staff officers calculated the proportion between horses and men at 1:3 (73).

The leaders of these nations believed that this war would be fought in the same manner of wars past, and would only last six months.  It became apparent as the trenches were dug and the battle lines were set that World War I would become a long and deadly affair that would forever change the ways war was fought.

            The most effective armament used in the First World War as artillery. Runners and aircraft would gather information on troop positions and movement; this information would be sent to artillery units who would bombard the enemy troops.  The British lobbed thousands of bombs during the war, but the Germans developed “Big Bertha” a massive piece of artillery that could fire at Paris from over 75 miles away.  It was only the artillery that was improved during the war, but the shells were upgraded as well. Instead of ordinary shells, new high-explosive shells were developed. These were thin cased shells that were filled with tiny lead pellets. The improvements were such that artillery fire now could kill hundreds and thousands of men.

The machine gun, first used in the Civil War, also was improved.  The German Maxim machine gun was fed by a fabric or metal belt, making it a very effective automatic weapon, its relatively small size also made it difficult for the enemy to destroy. On the opening day of the Somme offensive the British suffered a record number of single day casualties, 60,000, the great majority lost under withering machine gun fire.

Sir Winston Churchill in his book, The World in Crisis, wrote of the machine guns at Somme, “Even one machine gun is skilled resolute hands might lay five hundred men dead and dying on the ground; and along the assaulted front certainly a thousand of such scientifically related in several lines of defence awaited their prey” (655).

The British also had machine guns; however they were based on the German Maxim.  The Vickers Gun was water cooled, via a jacket around the barrel which held approximately one gallon of water. The Vickers was loaded from a 250-round fabric belt mounted on a tripod.  It fired some 450 rounds per minute; after some 10,000 rounds had been fired the gun barrel invariably required replacement.  The difficulty with this weapon was that it took six men to operate it.

The battles on the ground in the First War World were horrifying. Men left the trenches crossing “no-man’s land” in a hail of gunfire, often getting tangled in barbwire. Even in the trenches soldiers were not safe due to the use of chemical weapons.  The massive use of chemical weapons cut both ways.  Gas was effective at killing and demoralizing soldiers, as well as stopping advancing attacks. However depending upon the weather conditions it could be ineffective or even blown back onto the troops that were using it as their weapon. (Keegan, 197-202).

At the beginning of the war, aircraft were used for reconnaissance, flying above the enemy lines, helping to direct the artillery bombardments or to detect and troop movements, it was soon realized though that bombs could be dropped from the planes onto the enemy causing as much damage as possible.

This led to the development of fighter planes, the Sopwith Camel was developed by the British and the Germans retaliated with the Fokker Triplane. The most famous pilots of The Great War was a German pilot named Manfred Von Richthofen, better known as the Red Baron, He was responsible for shooting down over 80 Allied aircraft before he himself was killed when his aircraft, a Fokker Triplane, was shot down over France in 1918 (Keegan, 359-360).

Tanks were introduced into battle for the first time in 1916 by the British, these proved to be unreliable though, A later model played a vital role during the allied advances of 1918, flattening barbed wire, crossing enemy trenches and acting as shields for the advancing troops.  Tanks creation of the tanks was brought about as “the trench lines on both sides reached the sea, and there was no longer any open ground for manoeuvre or any flanks to turn” (Churchill, 304).

Another interesting insight of Churchill’s was, “The armored car was the child of the air; and the Tank its grandchild.  Churchill, who was involved in the creation of the tank (304-306), could see how the needs of the fighting forces changes, weapons needed to evolve to maintain or gain the advantage.

Churchill is an interesting character; he entered the Royal Military College of Sandhurst, and graduated with honors in December of 1894. Then he later saw action in Cuba, India, Egypt, Sudan, the front lines of World War I, and even took part in one of the last British cavalry charges in history (Severance, 17).  He is a bridge from World War One and World War Two, where he served as Britain’s Prime Minister.  It is often said that the cause of WWII was WWI, and Churchill experienced both first hand.

The advances of weaponry in World War I were improved on in World War II.  The use of submarines became more deadly during the Second World War than could have possibly been imagined in 1914.  The role of aircraft grew in land, sea and air.  The bombs and shells of battle became even more deadly.

The submarine in its infancy in WWI became a deadly and terrifying force in WWII.   In the Atlantic, where German submarines again acted against Allied convoys, this part of the war was very reminiscent of the latter part of World War I. Many British submarines were active as well, particularly in the Mediterranean and off Norway, against Axis warships, submarines and merchant shipping.

In the Pacific, the situation was reversed, with US submarines hunting Japanese shipping. By war's end, U.S. submarines had destroyed over half of all Japanese merchant ships sunk, totaling well over five million tons of shipping (Blair, 878). British and Dutch submarines also took part in attacks on Japanese shipping, mostly in coastal waters. Japanese submarines were often ineffectual, and by doctrine concentrated on attacking warships, rather than more-vulnerable merchantmen. A few German and Italian submarines operated in the Pacific Ocean, but never enough to be an important factor, inhibited by distance and difficult relations with their Japanese ally. The submarine was a silent, effective and deadly killer in both theaters in World War II.

One example of the power of artillery can be seen in the Battle of Bastogne.  The HBO special “Band of Brothers,” paints an excellent picture of the terror, panic and suffering of American troops during this week.  The constant bombardment of the troops was almost as much psychological warfare as it was an attempt to kill American soldiers. The American soldiers were outnumbered and lacking in cold-weather gear, ammunition, food, medical supplies, and leadership Due to some of the worst winter weather in years, the surrounded U.S. forces could not be resupplied by air nor was tactical air support available.  The attitude of the 101st Airborne could be summed up in most famous quote of the battle came from the 101st’s acting commander, Brigadier General McAuliffe. When confronted with a written request from German General Luttwitz for surrender of Bastogne, he replied “NUTS!”(Ambrose, 224).

            The use of aircraft to drop massive tonnages of bombs changed the complexion of war.  In the past civilian targets were avoided, but the Germans bombed ports such as Liverpool and Manchester, as well as. London.  The British in turn began bombing German cities in an attempt to destroy their military manufacturing capabilities.  One of the most infamous bombing raids took place in Dresden. It “has been called the most barbaric, senseless act of the war” (Ambrose, 306).   It is believed that 250,000 people were killed in twenty-four hours.

            The Japanese near the end of the war used their aircraft as weapons.  Kamikaze pilots would crash their planes into naval ships in attempts to inflict damage and hindered their capabilities.  The British, Germans and Americans engaged in dogfights in aircraft that became fast and more maneuverable in the air. Planes could now strike from the oceans, thanks to aircraft carriers and air power became the deciding factor in battle.

            There are two examples of how the technologies of war change man forever.  The first is the atomic bomb.  Its impact can still be felt today and the fear of their use by a nation or terrorist groups will be with us forever.  The other example is the concentration camps designed by the Nazis for the extermination of the Jews.  Man’s inhumanity to man was almost incomprehensible to the soldiers and people of that time, as it is to many today.  The fear here is that many have forgotten those atrocities of the past and some even deny that they happened.

            The Vietnam War introduced some guided weapons systems in an attempt to reduce civilian casualties.  Helicopters became the new cavalry, as they could move troops to battle quickly, transport the injured to field hospitals, move equipment and do reconnaissance.  The use of aircraft continued its evolution from WWII and Korea almost, at times, becoming the main fighting force in the jungle terrain.

            While American casualties have declined in the wars of the past 40 years, the technology has made the killing of troops more efficient.  In the Gulf Wars Americans were witnesses on live television of how effective smart bombs had become.  One of the most memorable clips was the destruction of a bridge as a civilian vehicle was just getting off the bridge.  There have been examples of aircraft sending a missile down and air vent destroy the enemy, or bunker busting bombs that can penetrate below the surface destroying hard to reach targets.

            It seems that a new conflict is always just around the corner, and the military leaders are constantly reaching for the next great weapon that can end war quickly.  However we have seen that wars do not end quickly or without great cost.  The great advances in technology that could one day cure cancer, send humans to Mars, or even just move us place to place more efficiently will one day be used to destroy what it was to protect or cure.

            As long as there are old men who lust for power and seek to advance their way of life to others, the young will sacrifice themselves for the cause.  I wish it were not so.  If we were taught the horrors of war instead of reducing them to video games, were you never really die and war is cool, tomorrow’s leaders would consider the consequences of sending our youth into the battlefield.  In the words of Robert F. Kennedy, “Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.”



Works Cited

Gleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin, 1987. Print.

Ambrose, Stephen E. Citizen Soldiers. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997.

Blair, Clay Jr., Silent Victory: The U.S. Submarine War Against Japan. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2001.

Churchill, Winston S. The World in Crisis 1911-1918. New York: Free Press, 1959.

Keegan, John. The First World War. New York: Knopf, 1998.

Severance, John B. Winston Churchill: Soldier, Statesman. New York: Clarion Books, 1996.

Socrates’ plan of breeding the Guardian class is interesting.  It is one part Hitler’s Aryan Race, one part slave owner’s dream, and two parts Hillary Clinton’s, “It Takes a Village.”  At times one has to wonder if Socrates believes what he is saying, or is he just trying to push the people around him buttons.  We can see in today’s society how the “new family” structure works.  With the divorce rate hovering around 50% we have evidence of how successful the communal family works.  The children are confused, their loyalties torn; have depression issues and, in turn, often have poor family relationships.  Perhaps this is Socrates’ goal, there is no loyalty to family only to the state.  Was this not Hitler’s goal with his youth programs?  We know it was the policy of the slave owner; breed the best stock keep some, sell some.  In the end both of these ideas feed into Hillary’s village.

The loyalty is to the community, or the “just city,” and not to the basic family structure that has built societies that have grown and flourished.  Socrates’ breeding plan lowers mankind to the level of the beast.  

The just city can not come into existence.  The basic struggle will always be; whose justice will rule and will the just ruler, rule justly.  Some consider Marx a philosopher, yet when his idea of a “just city” was put to the test millions died.  The Founding Fathers, to some were philosophers, tried to create a shining city on the hill, but slavery continued, if you didn’t own property you couldn’t vote, presidents suspended the rights of citizens and, it seems at times, the powerful only have their best interests in mind.  Unfortunately, if the “just city” came into existence the philosopher would give way to the tyrant.  Man’s justice is imperfect and that is the reality we face.

The Problem

            Diabetes is one of the fastest growing health problems in the United States today.  More than 16 million Americans have diabetes.  There are several types of diabetes among them are; Type 1, Type 2 and Gestational.  Gestational diabetes is a type of diabetes that develops only in pregnant women. Type 1 diabetes is better known as juvenile-onset diabetes.  However it is Type 2 that is becoming a national epidemic.

            The risk group for type 2 diabetes can include older aged individuals, people suffering from obesity, those with a family history of diabetes, physically inactive people and those with impaired glucose tolerance.  While the disease cuts across racial lines, those of African-America, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian, Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders are at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes.  A few of the symptoms of this form of diabetes can be; frequent urination, excessive thirst, unexplained weight loss, extreme hunger, sudden vision changes, trembling or numbness in the hands or feet and feeling tired much of the time.  Any one having these symptoms should see a doctor.

The Causes

            This form of diabetes can develop at any age.  Type 2 diabetes often begins with insulin resistance, a condition where fat, muscle and liver cells do not use the insulin properly.  There is believed to be a strong genetic link in Type 2.  Several genes are being studied by scientists that may be related to this type of diabetes.  However in some respects Type 2 seems to be a self-induced disease.

            Type 2 diabetes is spreading down the age ladder and is striking teenagers at an alarming rate.  A person who becomes a diabetic as a teenager will have terrible complications by the time they are thirty.  Why are today’s teens so susceptible to diabetes today?  To be blunt they are lazy, fat and glued to the Xbox or Playstation 2. Teenagers of today do not take part in sports, ride bikes or engage in most of the recreational activities of just a generation ago.

            If you can find a park in decent condition, do you ever see any unorganized activity taking place?  Chances are no.  Today parents focus so much on living their lives through their children that they are now damaging physically.  Often by the age of ten sports programs have determined which 15-20 kids are the athletes, sending the vast majority inside to sit in front of the television playing video games, or worse.

            Many of today’s teens spend so much time behind a computer that their rear ends are fused to the chair.  According to Project Takeoff the amount of overweight adolescents (12-19) has tripled.  As a teen does less diabetes starts to slow the body’s metabolism further causing the sufferer to be come more lethargic and irritable.  As young Johnny becomes fatter and less socially skilled he hides behind a television or computer screen eating himself to death.  Instead of expanding his horizons with healthy activities, they are expanding their waste lines and shortening their lives.

            While the young may be able to blame adults and today’s hi-tech society, their parents only have themselves to blame.  Perhaps the most informed, as to healthy lifestyle choices, they are the most narcissistic and self-destructive group of individuals in history.  In an effort to have it all they have sacrificed years of their lives to fast food, alcohol, tobacco and laziness.

            We have become so lazy that pizza and movies are delivered to our homes.  Families across America fight to see who has to get up and answer the door.  God forbid we can’t find the remote control.  Do you remember, or have tried to explain to a teen, when we had to get up and change the channel, turn up the volume by hand?  People complain about the cost of a gallon of gas, not realizing that the medical cost for each diabetic costs between $10,000 to $12,000 annually.  Pass the pepperoni.

            In our rush to surpass the Jones, the stress of sixty hour work weeks is adding to our susceptibility to diabetes.  With pagers, cell phones, blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, emails, walkie-talkie phones there is no escape from the hassles of work.

We gain weight as we sit in front of our terminal eating our super stacker burger with the works, biggie fry and Diet Coke.  For people in their forties, the incidence of diabetes has increased by 40 percent over the past eight years.  The life expectancy of people over forty with Type 2 diabetes decreases by 5-10 years.  With the stress, poor eating habits and lack of exercise is any wonder that heart disease is the leading cause of death for people with Type 2 diabetes.

            In response to the growing health burden and cost of diabetes, we are faced with three choices: prevent diabetes, control diabetes and improving the medical communities’ ability to care for those suffering from diabetes. 

Quite simply we could cut the risks of Type 2 diabetes by pushing ourselves away from the table and taking a walk in the park.  A number of studies have shown that regular physical activity, only 30 minutes a day, a person can greatly reduce the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. 
 

            Western Pennsylvania has much to offer a resident.  In fact, Pittsburgh is an excellent place to live, having been named the “Most Livable City” twice.  The area offers hunting and fishing, both just minutes away from downtown.  The city itself offers many different types of entertainment.  Pittsburgh has the Steelers, Pirates, Penguins and numerous colleges if you enjoy sports.  If you’re not a big sports fan, come downtown and visit the zoo, the Buhl Science Center, Heinz Hall, the Carnegie Museum or the Warhol Museum.  However if you dare to venture in to the fair city be warned, these are some of the worst roads in the country, as well as, pothole capital of the world.   There is cost effective solution that could turn Pittsburgh into the most drivable city by simply using a willow we can end the weeping.

            As the seasons change in Allegheny County the residents don’t need a calendar.  Sure there are the regular seasons; spring, summer, fall and winter, but the one that brings out the worst in the local citizens is pothole season. Unfortunately, we are famous for our potholes, some are rumored to have swallowed entire cars, there is no real proof to back that claim.  Route 51 heading south to Elizabeth had so many potholes one season that it was called the “Burma Road.”  One year there was a pothole on Route 65, in Avalon, that measured eight feet long and three feet wide.

            It has been suggested that the main cause of the pothole problem is the weather.  The snow or rain, freezes on the road, then melts and re-freezes under the road causing the nasty pothole.  However, I would argue that the problem is the clay under the road.  The clay holds moisture under the road all year and when the temperature changes, regardless of snow or rain, the road starts to bubble or break as the clay freezes.  So it really doesn’t matter what type of road surface is used or, for that matter, what type of drainage system is used under the road.  The real problem is the water being held in the clay.

            A simple, cost effective and environmentally friendly solution to the problem is Weeping Willow trees.  A Weeping Willow is a fast growing tree that absorbs gallons of water.  The tree searches for water in the surrounding area and grows well in all types of ground conditions.  I would suggest finding a two mile area along a well traveled road in the Allegheny County area and plant several Weeping Willow trees on both sides.  If the program works, the trees could be planted along sections of road throughout Pennsylvania, at about the cost of $18.45 per tree.

            The savings made by not having to continually work on the same stretches of road would free up money to make the necessary repairs to the roads in the cities.  Where possible Weeping Willows, or other similar trees, could be planted in suitable areas in the cities to see if this project could succeed in a downtown area.  Given the poor reputation of our roads and the environmental concerns of the time, the Weeping Willow project could enhance the reputation of the Pittsburgh area, as well as, put us in the forefront of creative change for road condition solutions.

           What is a comedian? Granted comics have probably been around forever.  It has long been rumored that the first comic gag involved a burning leather sack of dinosaur dung placed outside an unsuspecting Neanderthal’s cave door.  However overtime a debate has raged over comics and comedians; are they the same or is there a difference between the two?  Henny Youngman and Richard Pryor both made people laugh, but is there some special spark that made one a comic and the other a comedian? Larry the Cable Guy and Bob Engvall are two of today’s most popular entertainers.  While their presentations could be considered “down home country” their styles are very different.  It is the style that is the difference.  A comic throws out shorts bursts or lines, while a comedian is almost a modern day philosopher.

            A comic can be found in his early stages in the back of a classroom, often in science class, answering that his favorite planet is Uranus.  Get it? Your anus. The young comic often is the one to give clever nicknames to classmates; the red headed kid is, of course, “red.”  The kid with glasses is “four-eyes” and Jane is “Plain Jane.”  He can most often be seen reading Mad-Libs, completing silly one line sentences that make a haphazard story.  At this stage he is relatively harmless, often annoying, better to have as a friend than enemy.

            A comedian at this young stage can be found entertaining a small group during lunch or at the bus stop.  In the formative stage he will tell exaggerated tales that involve multiple layers of adventure, mystery and humor in his or a friends life.  Often to gain a wider audience he will tell tales that involve two or more friends.  The stories rarely degrade the principles and mostly focus on the farce of the situation they were in.  A typical story may describe a camping adventure where the boys start to discuss farting and decide to have a contest.  After two hours of farting the tent smells so bad they have to sleep outside, and it begins to rain. Of course they can’t go into the house or they would get in trouble for “horsing around instead of sleeping.”  Besides are the others going to call home and ask their parents come pick them up because the tent smells.  These shared experiences become the foundation of the young comedian’s growth. 

            Once out of school, it is at this point that the comedian separates himself from the comic.  If both go to college, chances are, the comic has consumed almost all the beer in Milwaukee, whereas, the comedian has been observing what has been going on around him, and possibly attending class.  The comic while at college continues to spit out pithy one-liners.  However his audience has grown matured and is not now as easily entertained.  The comedian has adapted his monologues for the group he is hanging out with, or quite possibly, hanging out with him.  Here, by watching and listening, he begins to develop expand his world view, thought process and opinions of people. 

            Not all comedians learn their skills in college.  Many have started from nothing, in deplorable conditions and have become successful comedians.  Richard Pryor’s mother was a prostitute and he lived in the whorehouse run by his grandmother.  Yet Pryor became one of the biggest, best known comedians of all-time.  Many of today’s comedians list Richard Pryor as one of their greatest influences.  Pryor cut through racial and societal boundaries due to his ability to draw his audiences into his stories.  He covered controversial topics, including his own life, and made them thought provoking as well as enjoyable.

            There are many who found Pryor obscene and disgusting.  Some said he was just continuing what Lenny Bruce had started in the early Sixties.  Bruce may have set the stage for comedians like Pryor, but his stories were shocking social commentary that often gained only uncomfortable laughter.  Bruce was considered vulgar as he often swore and blasted religion, both controversial at the time.  A contrast between Bruce and Pryor would be he might call you a stupid motherfucker, but he would do it with a smile on his face and only after he had spent about an hour calling himself the same thing.  Bruce however, would swear at you and expect you to have no reaction as they were words you had heard all your life.  Bruce, unlike Pryor, enjoyed sharing his experiences good or bad.  It was almost a relief to free his pain and help audiences expand or consider their belief systems.

            Perhaps the polar opposite of Pryor is Bill Crosby.  Crosby is a graduate of Temple University and has been awarded many honorary degrees.  He became a successful comedian by sharing stories of his life as a child and, over time, his life as a father.  Crosby’s appeal was almost universal.  The stories of his youth included tales of his brother and Fat Albert.  These were stories that many adults could relate too.  Crosby also told of the humorous trials and tribulations of parenthood.  Once again, these were real stories that both parents and kids could relate.  His performances lead to a top rated, long running television show, The Crosby Show.  Only a comedian could hold the attention of the television viewer with a story that entertained and often had a powerful message.

            Bill Engvall is a popular comedian who is similar to Crosby.  Engvall learned his trade the old fashion way, he worked at it.  Unlike Crosby, he did not attend college. 

Engvall started at the Dallas Comedy Club telling stories about his friends and family.  Now his act contains stories and observations of everyday people he meets around the country.  He can spin a story on life for half an hour and the audience is transported into the scene.  By the end of the show crowd has been thoroughly entertained have learned some valuable lessons on the human condition.

            Obviously there will always be some crossover in regard to comedians and comics.  However, on the whole, there are real differences. As Jack Benny once said, “A comic says funny things. A comedian says things funny.”  A comic as we have seen is good at one liners, nicknames and short quips.  A comedian, on the other hand, entertains. It may be a turn of phrase, making a similar experience seem new and funny, or taking a difficult subject and cause the audience to think about it in a different light.  Henny Youngman was known for his one liners, he was a comic.  Richard Pryor and those like him are comedians as they show us slices of life, both humorous and troubling, while making us laugh and think.  They are today’s philosophers. 

           The definition of leadership that I found most appealing is described in “Transactional and Transforming Leadership,” by James McGregor Burns.  In this piece Burns portrays leadership in this way, “I define leadership as leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and motivations-the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations-of both leaders and followers” (100).  In this we can see that leadership involves not only the ideas and concern of the leader, but gaining the trust and loyalty of the followers.

            Today, at least in the area of political leadership, the public seems to be more concerned in voting for celebrity, than a leader.  In the past there was more reasoned discussion on the issues of the day.  While the twenty-four hour news cycle and the internet have brought more people into the debate, the noise of special interest groups or the extremes of both parties has drowned out some of the ability to solve the problems we face.

            The difficulty faced today by leaders and followers is one of trust.  While the voters may like a candidate as an individual, there is a lack of trust.  There seems to be a disconnect between those in power and those that put them there.  This can be seen in polling that has Congressional and Presidential favorability numbers at record lows. It is possible that this could change if the next generation of political leaders were to embrace Burns’ idea of leadership.

            A candidate who can run on shared ideas and values can motivate his followers to stick with the agenda when times get tough.  In today’s political climate, as our leaders are viewed as celebrities, once the going gets tough, the followers pack their bags and go home.  Leaders and followers are superficial, were as, with the Burns model there is a shared sense of purpose and willingness to dig in to do battle for a common purpose.

            An example from the past would be President Ronald Reagan.  During his campaign he focused on four to five issues that resonated with people of all types.  Once elected, he held firm to his beliefs and went directly to his followers to contact Congress to get their legislation passed.  In Burns’ words, “. . . the genius of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see and act on their follower’s values and motivations” (100).  Reagan knew where his people stood on the issues and had the ability to get them motivated to get the job done.

            A more recent example would be Congressman Ron Paul.  Rep. Paul was not well known on the national stage, yet had an impact in the 2008 Republican primaries.  Paul, like Reagan had a simple and straight forward message that crossed party lines.  A Ron Paul rally had people of all ages, ethnic, social and religious groups together based a set of shared values.  Even though he did not win the nomination of his party, Paul’s followers have established a couple of political groups to continue the work of the Ron Paul Revolution.

            Why was Reagan successful, while Paul failed using the same strategies and Burns’ model of leadership?  The big difference in the two was that Reagan had been a governor and was better known to the public.  The turning point in the primaries forReagan came in a debate in New Hampshire.  Reagan had lost in Iowa to George H. W. Bush who was claiming he now had “Big Mo.” Reagan and Bush agreed to a debate in New Hampshire that would be paid for by the Reagan campaign.  Reagan also invited the other four candidates to the debate.  Bush refused to debate them and eventually left.

Mark Hatfield of the Senate Historical Office put importance of this debate in its proper context writing,

This proved to be a pivotal moment in the campaign; when the moderator, John Breene, ordered Reagan's microphone turned off, his angry response, "I am paying for this microphone Mr. Greene", struck a chord with the public. Bush ended up losing New Hampshire's primary with 23 percent to Reagan's 50 percent.  Bush lost most of the remaining primaries as well, and formally dropped out of the race in May of that year.

 Ronald Reagan at that moment touched America.  Not only did Reagan talk about opportunity and fair play, he proved it with his actions during this debate.

            Unfortunately for Ron Paul he had no such moment in the debates.  With the cable news network’s controlling the debates, Rep. Paul was marginalized and was not allowed to participate in one debate.  Undaunted, Paul took his message to the internet which, it seemed, the majority of his support was based.  While this was effective in raising money and getting his message out, it didn’t help in the polls or the primary contests.

            In both Reagan and Paul you have two leaders that stood for what they believed in and attracted followers that felt the same way.  This is what a leader should be, someone with a strong foundations of beliefs that can rally people from different backgrounds and social standings to unite for a common purpose.  President Reagan may have started out in the movies, but when it came to leadership, he was not just a celebrity.