Yet another one of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s gaffs has set the Conservative world on fire with laughter, but the topic she brought up is quite valid and critical to understanding the “Crisis of Leadership” that we are in right now.
On MSNBC the non-systemic candidate was given a lot of on-air time by the system to discuss her plans to change the system via the temporarily failing Green New Deal. At one point she decided to bring up the 22nd Amendment saying in terms of some sort of anti-Progressive conspiracy. She said…
"They had to amend the Constitution of the United States
to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected."
Although factually Miss Ocasio-Cortez was wrong, since Roosevelt was already dead by that point and thus ineligible to be elected, in spirit however, what she said was right. The 22nd Amendment was a strong reaction to a long-serving Presidency. In fact, it was the longest in US history. She was right that this amendment was made as a means to prevent another “Roosevelt” from coming to power and staying for an entire generation or more in the Oval Office.
Today, we assume whole-heartedly and without question that shifting Presidents/Prime Ministers every few years insures some sort of legitimacy and efficiency in the power structures that govern us, but is this really the case? In fact, throughout the Western World there is a growing “meme” that there is a “Crisis of Leadership”. There is a perception that the inefficiency and especially stagnation, that we see in government is due to a lack of quality leadership. This thinking seems to date back to the 2015 World Economic Forum where the following statistic was presented…
“A startling 86% of respondents to the Survey on the Global Agenda
agree that we have a leadership crisis in the world today.”
That is a rather solid majority. Of course, a “crisis” can often be a feeling, if the media creates enough panic about any topic loud enough people will feel there is a crisis. The supposed Leadership Crisis if it does exist has nothing to with anything related to morality or some sort of electoral mechanics letting us down. It is that the current stem under which most of the world lives does not allow for true leadership to exist.
The masses seem to have a very paradoxical view of what leadership is in our modern system. From an American perspective, we can see that the populace is proud of America’s Democracy, believes in it fully and yet wants to vote in a new absolute dictator every four years who will come in and change everything in their favor.
People elect presidents based on a wide range of campaign promises to make massive sweeping changes in the bureaucratic Liberal system that we live in, that is specifically designed to now allow abrupt change from an impassioned leader. The US Constitution is a barrier against authoritarian leaders making the changes the masses want then to make when casting their ballot for team red or team blue.
Presidential candidates should actually make promises about which potential laws they would veto, because this is something they can actually do, The process of making laws is 1) not the responsibility of the President as deemed by the US Constitution and 2) is in the hands of Congress and at the mercy of the watchful eye of the Supreme Court. Meaning that even if Trump wants with all his heart and soul to build “The Wall” he has thus far been unable to do so because they system won’t let him. If Ocasio-Cortez honestly believes in her New Green Deal (which she seems to) then there is no guarantee that she could get it through both houses and past the judges should she ever become the first female POTUS. This is not a matter of will or honesty this is a result of the way the Western political system works.
The Liberal Republics in which we live have powers divided with checks and balances, thus no amount of passion or changes in leadership can make bold change. So why are we so surprised that there is stagnation and a so-called Crisis of Leadership, when leadership is essentially forbidden.
In the West we have no rulers only managers
To be a leader (ruler) requires the power to take action and the freedom from bureaucracy necessary to make that action happen. To lead you must have power, if you are helpless and tied down you are not leading anything anywhere. Managers can tell people what to do and move money and resources around, but they have no ability to choose the direction of their work. The crisis we are facing is rule by quasi helpless “managers” and the forced systemic exclusion of real leaders. When we open our minds to this, it all seems rather obvious so how did we get here, stuck in this predicament?
Long, long, ago when the Enlightenment was fresh and still twinkling, the idea of dividing and limiting power seemed like a reasonable answer to the absolute power of Hereditary Monarchs. However, hundreds of years later we now find ourselves not repressed by the incompetent undeserving son of the recently dead king but under the crushing weight of a bureaucracy that gives us no means by which to deal with it. Hereditary Monarchy at least provided the option of beheading the failed Monarch to put a better one in his place to push the country/empire forward. Our current system allows you to vote for the other corrupt party to helplessly flail in the swamp of bureaucracy.
The West finds itself in a position where it can see itself dying out or being replaced, where cultural masochism has become the norm, and where people are so unhappy they cannot create families and have children. For people who have all their needs met the amount of them willing to destroy themselves with substance abuse is shocking. The global “shift to the right” that we are seeing now is a reaction to that but this ultimately will not matter because no leader can win in a system rigged against the idea of having leadership, unless he breaks the system itself.
The crisis of leadership that is being discussed is actually a crisis of Liberalism.