Choosing a Chief
As the nation readies to choose a leader, to choose the one “on top” of the country, forget about the choices you have been given and consider what the criteria for a leader should be. Here's a concept to consider: Being on top means you serve others.
Many Native American tribes choose a new chief by determining who has done the most for the tribe. Who has given the most to the tribe, in time, labor, courage? Who has taken in the most orphaned children, taken care of the most widows, given his plate of food to a hungry mouth? Who has done these things without thought of compensation for doing them? This is the one who knows the right path to follow, the path on which to lead the people.
Who is our leader today? It is a man whose speeches use the word “I” more than any other past President's speeches. “I did this...” “I did that...” He has told business builders that they are nothing special and would have nothing without the government. Aggrandizement of self is not the sign of a good leader.
Our current President stated that his wife should receive a salary for all the wonderful works she does. I guess all those taxpayer funded social trips to the luxury spots of the world for her, their children, plus her entourage of secret service agents, stylists and family members along for the ride isn't compensation enough. And I guess it isn't enough just to know you've done something positive (Has she? Is making school children eat scallions a positive act?). That statement by the President can only be translated to say, “I'm only in this for the money.”
Who do we have to choose from in this “election” (read: imaginary choice between the lesser of two evils)? One candidate has already had 4 years in office and has benefited only the bankers and a few huge corporations while more and more Americans go sleepless worrying about feeding their family tomorrow.
The other candidate has spent most of his career amassing huge sums of money by sending American jobs overseas. How does that help the people of this country? How does that make him qualified – let alone worthy – of being the leader of the American people?
Do we base our choice for a leader on promises never to be kept? Why do we even ask a candidate what laws he wants to create? A PRESIDENT DOESN'T MAKE THE LAWS! That is the job of the Congress – not simply to pass, without review, anything the President says to pass. The strength of the Constitution, the “checks and balances”, has been done away with along with most of the Bill of Rights.
Is the question “who to vote for?”, or is it “why vote?” If your only choice is between two people unworthy of the office because the main factor in choosing a candidate is how much money they have and can amass (money is the key to candidacy and election), that is antithetical to the Native American way – with predictable results.
Choosing the lesser between two evils is not the right way to choose any leader, it's like choosing which poison you'd like to die from. So if the choice is between demonstrably the worst president ever, and a corporate stooge who's only claim to fame is that he is really good at sending American jobs to China, then there is no choice at all.
In an election, we are only allowed to make a choice between the candidates that have been “anointed” by the powers that be. And they have already chosen the winner, and that choice was “announced” by the winner's attendance at the table of the powers that be. Lets take a look at the last 8 Presidents:
And ALL are related to each other and the royal
Voting for no one when given a choice of two absolutely dreadful candidates is truly voting. Your not voting sends a message. The mainstream media rationalize that the reason why the numbers of people voting is dwindling due to apathy. Just the opposite, it is a declaration of dissatisfaction with the choices.
A little known fact about elections: unless you are a member of the “demopoops” or “repooplicans”, getting into a congressional race or even the local dog catcher race becomes an unsolvable, deterring maze and nearly impossible to accomplish. In the State of Georgia, there is a half-million dollar cash bond required to enter a state-wide race (senator, governor, etc.) if you are not acting under one of the two main parties. Then, if you do not receive 5% of the vote, your bond is forfeited. Any American can become President?????
American democracy is strikingly different from European democracy. In Germany for example, there are the communist party, social democrat party, socialist party, workers party, Christian democrat party, the green party to name a few. And all have a place on the ballot. Also in Europe, the parliamentary system allows a vote of “no confidence”. If that vote is approved, the prime minister and his cabinet step down. If our Constitution included that feature, would our Presidents be a little more motivated to do a better job?
We must stop choosing leaders by how well they did
“themselves”, and begin looking for the person who will do the
most for his people – not someone whose only interest is what they
are going to get out of it. Wouldn't you
prefer to vote for someone with the spirit
of the Great Chiefs: Pontiac, Seathl, Joesph? These men gave
selflessly of themselves, for the greater good of their people. There's
a new paradigm coming. The old rotting edifice of the
current society is soon enough going to come to an end. If we have
wisdom we will remember the lessons that the great Native American
chiefs left for us...to be a leader means to serve.