Its Called the Executive Branch, Not the Executive Man

A recent article written by Mitt Romney, and published by USATODAY.com, brought back regretful memories of the day that Mr. Romney resigned the Republican Nomination to John McCain. It was truly a mistake to believe that such a volatile person could beat the emotionally charged Democratic Party.

I wrote a hopeful article right after Barack Obama was elected into office—hopeful that all was well and that the pressures of the Presidential Office would push him Obama into rationality. I am now beginning to realize how wrong I was in my optimism. It is as if conservatives in America shot a metaphorical “3-pointer.” The shot missed, was rebounded by liberals who sent the ball down to the other side of the court and swished their own debilitating “3-pointer.” Not only did we lose the opportunity to progress, but we’ve digressed just as much as we could have progressed.

There is much to be done in the country. Ben Bernake recently was cited in the Washington Post as saying that the current Federal budget is “unsustainable.” The process of rooting out all of the programs that simply are not the Federal Government’s responsibility; the process of handing those responsibilities over to the state and local governments; the process of challenging the American People to take care of their own; these will all take decades to realize. And the problems don’t just stop with the budget. There are several philosophical misconceptions that need to have some light shed upon as well. I believe in America and know that a higher power inspired the formation of this nation. I believe a solution is at hand, but let me warn that our current political system is responsible for most of the problems we face.

Democrats and Republicans rule America right now. I have a hard time understanding why nobody notices that George Washington, the greatest president this country has ever seen, had no party affiliations. Shouldn’t that be an indicator? With the exception of a few, most of our presidents end up gravitating towards the middle of the road. Has anybody thought about why? Has anybody thought that maybe a two party system IS NOT WORKING? Did anybody pay attention to George Washington’s warning against the formation of political parties? Are we really so easily provoked to the mob mentality that we must choose a side?

These are questions that have plagued my mind for several years now. I was at one point in doubt that my questions were valid after my brother scolded my questions with a reference to the Federalist Papers. Having never read any of the Federalist Papers, I had to withdraw my argument until I gained some insight into the argument. But finally, after several years of biting my tongue, my questions receive an indirect vindication from Mitt Romney.

A local University recently held their student body elections for the up-coming year. I have observed the political system at work at this school for several years now and am impressed by the intuitive election process that takes place there every year. When walking down the halls of a university campus two days before an election, most people would expect to see hundreds of signs, posters and flyers that had the typical “Vote For Me” (or something similar) campaign slogan on display. This university, however, has realized that problems are best solved in teams, and that no one person could possibly possess all the skills and know-how needed to govern a large body of people.

The winner of the election at this university was not one person, but rather a team called “Team Elevate.” Team Elevate consists of a candidate for each of the following offices: student body president, executive vice president, vice president of academics and vice president of student life. Team Elevate campaigned against other teams that were formed and the student body ultimately made its choice. Can you see why this impressed me so much, yet? No? Well, my last article on leadership focused more on what the people can do to help a leader. This time, I’ll explain how a leader can be most effective.

The first step in becoming an effective leader is to realize that your function is NOT—I repeat—NOT to have all the answers. The days of believing that a governmental leader is an all-knowing god are long-passed (hopefully). We, as well-informed citizens of the United States, CANNOT make the mistake of believing that the President has enough life experience to solve any problem. Our society is one that emphasized specialization. Our citizens are expected to learn a trade and master it. Our colleges practically force us to pick a field of study (i.e. major) and become an expert in that field. So, how can we expect our college educated presidents to be experts in any field other than the one they professed in college? The simple answer is that we can’t. Our society isn’t built that way.

The second step in becoming an effective leader is build leadership qualities. These qualities include all the clichés that we’ve seen on political advertisements for years. Jim Collins give the best description of good leaders that I’ve ever seen in his book Good to Great, so I’ll refer you to that book for the qualities a leader needs.

The final step in becoming an effective leader is prioritizing; deciding which problems need to be solved now, and which can wait. For the problems that need to be solved now, a good leader selects individuals who specialize in solving the respective problems. Starting to come together? In the article by Mitt Romney that I mentioned above, he stated the following:

In a crisis, the leader must gather the experts — federal, state, local, public and private — not to discover who is to blame but to secure their active and continuous involvement until the crisis is resolved. There is extraordinary power inherent in an assembly of brilliant people guided by an able leader. In virtually every historic national crisis, our most effective leaders gathered the best minds they could find — consider the Founders in Philadelphia, Lincoln with his "Team of Rivals," Roosevelt with scientists and generals seeking to end World War II, Kennedy with the "Best and Brightest" confronting the Cuban missile crisis. What happens when men and women of various backgrounds, fields of expertise, and unfettered intellectual freedom come together to tackle a problem often exceeds any reasonable expectation. Ideas from one may cross-fertilize the thinking of another, yielding breakthroughs. The president of MIT told me that the university spent millions of dollars to build a bridge connecting two engineering departments that had been separated by a road — the potential for shared thinking made it more than worth the cost. But even a gathering of experts won't accomplish much unless a skilled leader uses their perspective to guide the recovery.

We have something similar to this third recommendation right now, but our focus is all wrong. Whenever a president is elected he chooses a cabinet. These cabinet members are supposedly experts in the field for which they were appointed, and usually are the ones that advise the president toward a specific solution. The great thing about the university mentioned above is that the candidate for student body president advertises his specialists just as much as he advertises himself. Humility is an ESSENTIAL quality of effective leaders. The ability to say, “I don’t know everything, but my team and I can solve everything that we promised to solve” is lacking in this country. During the campaign, the students at this university can interview each member of the team and decide if they are truly qualified for the position.

I wish I would have known that Janet Napolitano and Hillary Clinton were going to be in the President’s cabinet while he was campaigning. Had I known this, I would have been much more adamant in my Obama opposition. Instead, we elect leaders on the basis of party affiliation and basically say, “Here’s hoping!”

Hopefully, by now you’ve realized by now that this sort of system cannot exist with our current one. If we tried, experts would be selected on the basis of party instead of expertise. Republican candidates would only select Republican cronies, and Democrats would do the same. George Washington was the best President we’ve had; not because he knew everything, but because he knew how to inspire people to do what was right.

We have to face the truth that both parties are too interested in furthering their own interests to be trusted with improving our country. The part that gives me hope is that it wouldn’t take much to change our political system. It just takes one privately funded visionary that has the good sense to realize that his or her intellect is of better use when it is combined with other, specialized intellects.