Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Friends,
Seems to me that if we’re going to lead well and follow well, we’ve got to come to terms with something deep and basic in human nature. And understanding this odd aspect of our humanity is especially critical when our environments are topsy-turvy, insecure, scarce or scary. Such an environment could be part of your world now: anything from a kid going through adolescence, a family grieving the loss or illness of a loved one, a city in crisis, a state in the midst of massive change, or even a globe at risk. You’ll see this aspect of human nature bubbling up in three current events.
Tiger roared back yesterday at the Masters. The media’s yapping after the Pope. And Congressman Bart Stupak has said he’s not running for re-election. Perhaps it’s my son’s fascination with Greek mythology that has me thinking these stories are all a bit like the tales of the Greek gods. We would never call these mere mortals gods, but we certainly put them on lofty pedestals. The Vatican, for instance is quite literally filled with busts of popes; and how appropriate that Nike – named after the Greek goddess of victory – stood by Tiger. We put these demigods up, and we knock them down. Indeed, the tea bag crew which claims to have downed Stupak – and the media members chanting for the Pope to account – seem to measure their power precisely in their ability to take their targets down.
So, that’s it. Every leader is mortal and imperfect. Yet we want SO much from them, and we grow so hurt, scared, angry, and crazed when they let us down. In our enlightened age, people in their 50s, 60s, 70s and beyond, continue to wrestle with their disappointments about the mom or dad who let them down. Congregations lurch and spasm for years after a pastor has not fit their impossibly conflicted hopes and expectations. And we still can’t decide about that darned Thomas Jefferson – president, philosopher, scientist and slaveholder.
The main lesson for followers is this: get over the childish expectations that the boss, parent, teacher, mayor, CEO, or school superintendent is going to do everything your way. They’re fallible and so are you! The fundamental truth they experience is that there’s one of them and usually a whole lot of you’s; if they met your expectations, they’d be dashing someone else’s. I’m not saying, “tolerate everything,” but I am saying, examine your expectations of them with every bit as much passion as you examine their behaviors.
And the main lesson for us as everyday leaders: know you’ll fail them. Don’t scamper too quickly onto anyone’s pedestal, because it’s a lot harder coming down than getting up! Accept that your job often requires that you fail them (you can’t go on being parent or boss forever! They need to take over more and more.) Part of the work is helping them to keep from careening from infatuation to infuriation with their leaders, to instead focus on their own leadership. You’ve got to be frustrating them a little all the time, if they’re going to do the work they need to do.
A little less exalting, a little less faulting, to
Lead with your best self.
Terry,
Search my archives for anything negative about George Bush. You won’t find it.
This is not a partisan website, although people like you and two or three others seem to find NO other filter with which to understand and perceive the world than the Fox MSNBC tussle, that’s not what this blogsite is about. The way you read RFL would be like someone saying the Tigers suck cuz their uniforms aren’t as cute as the Yankees, or saying your business is idiotic cuz you pay workers more than the Chinese do. Can I say it more plainly? This is not a political site. If some of my examples are political and if they sometimes leak with my political beliefs, and if you can’t deal with that, don’t read it. I feel bad that you can’t seem to broaden your view beyond this one particular lens. Now, having said that, I am about the broader issue of speaking the truth and being accountable for what I say. Thus:
In case it’s not utterly clear to you -which apparently it’s not – I will answer your question and it is EASY for me to do so:
I condemn hate speech. Period.
I don’t think George Bush was particularly bright. But I think it hurts our dialogue when people call him an idiot. It undermines trust. I hope this satisfies you.
Now here is a question directly relevant to the inference that I draw from your question: If Dan Mulhern did not condemn hate speech as I just have, would that make the current hate speech good or helpful?
I’d like to hear your answer. Because this blog is much less about who’s right – me, you, or the man on the moon – than it is with what’s right. So, I ask you again: is hate speech from the right (from what I would absolutely say is a MINORITY of the tea bag people) okay because there is hate speech from the left (which I would also say is a minority of those people).
If the business next to you cheats on their taxes, Terry, does it make it okay for you?
Isn’t it about what’s right: speech that uplifts the dialogue, Terry, and not about whether “she said it first,” or “he did it more than I did it.”
I await your reply to any and all of the above questions.
Dan
I am not sure how to have a useful dialogue with you Terry. Can you honestly say that you look for the value in what I or others are saying? Have you ever written anything positive about anything here – besides the comment of one or two other people who sing from what appears to be the same single viewpoint that you have?
I am not interested in a game of gotcha with you. I am trying to promote a third way: a way of discussion, where people seek understanding first.
Dan-
It is clear that I responded to your use of the term Tea Bag. You know that is not the name of the movement and you know it is derisive. However you revel in the fact that this is a non partian forum that promotes the exchange of useful ideas. That is untruthful and manipulative.
The Tea Party movement has become huge and is having a positive impact on the political discussion. The majority of the people in the movement are respectful and civil and there have been very few incidents especially compared to the demonstrations in the 60’s or the ones against Bush. I get upset when Democrats feign outrage for political purposes when history is littered with deplorable acts of violence from the left.
I admit that my political views affect how I respond to your blog. I would be refreshing if you could admit the same.
Terry,
I repeat:
Now here is a question directly relevant to the inference that I draw from your question: If Dan Mulhern did not condemn hate speech as I just have, would that make the current hate speech good or helpful?
I’d like to hear your answer
Dan
No but I guess I dont get your point. Hate speech is not helpful whether it is directed at individuals or a group. Falsley characterizing a movement to try to demonize them is not good or helpful.
Right on Terry. The Left seems to have the hate. I just listened to our Chief Executive using his bully pulput to ridicule the Tea Party folks.
A clarification/correction for Terry and Greg: I did not mean to write “tea bag.” We could explore whether my unconscious was thirsty for my favorite brand of Red Rose, or whether it was about the rather grotesque current usage. But I did not mean to demean.
I didn’t even notice until Terry’s latest post.
I am all for political dialogue – preferably dialogue that speaks and listens – from left and right.
D.
That makes a big difference however it has been the tactic of the MSM.