I refer you to this piece from Newsweek which points out that America is losing/has lost its place as leader of the free world.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/156343

The article is primarily concerned with the role of globalisation in America’s decline but in my book it is a failure to adapt to changing times that is the problem. What worked well in the past won’t necessarily work well today.

My first criticism is uncontrolled democracy. The qualities needed to become President of the United States are a lot different from the qualities needed to be a good President of the United States. What the hell use is being a master of the sound bite when in office? And do you really want as president a man who is expert at the smear and dirty trick? And who is actually able to steal a close result that in fact he lost?

Surely the qualities required to be a good president are vision, integrity and intelligence, a person whose loyalty is to the American people as a whole rather than big business and the lobbyists? I haven’t sensed much of that lately in the White House. A change in the selection procedure is overdue.

Secondly there seems to be a prevailing culture of greed. Not just in America either. I suspect that big business is rotten through and through with top managements lining their own pockets through shady business practices, exorbitant salaries and bonuses. Enron was only the tip of the ice-berg and the current banking crises are a consequence of the decision makers’ greed.

At a lower level we have Mrs. Wobble slipping on to her fat backside in Wal-Mart and holding them responsible for her carelessness with litigation. Anything to make a buck.

The other thing is inertia or failure to adapt to changing world circumstances. Ford and GM for example admit they didn’t adapt and are struggling to free themselves from colossal trading losses. Nations, like people, get into a comfort zone and success does contain the seeds for ultimate failure if you let it.

I for one would prefer it that WASPs continue to remain powerful in the world. We can only do that by being worthy of the status. Not by divine right.

Kortpeel

Kortpeel-

First, I must address your WASP comment. I would like a clarification. You are aware that WASP is an acronym for White Anglo Saxon Protestant, right?

Are you suggesting that non-whites and non-Protestants are somehow less able to lead? If this is what you are asserting, you are WAY out of line on so many levels. Any man (or woman) is truly capable of achieving any goal they set for themselves, especially in the USA. This is not hyperbole or farce. It is the greatest of human truths.

Read a book: Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Lose your bigotry and, more importantly, lose your pessimism. It is appalling that a seemingly educated adult could be so short sighted.

It is NEVER as dark as it seems...

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:17 am I for one would prefer it that WASPs continue to remain powerful in the world.

One thing I have learned having the type of job where you are lobbed into the world's garden spots is that it doesn't matter if I am around whites, blacks, browns (Latino or Arab) or yellows. There are always people smarter than me, dumber than me, more artistic than me, less artistic than me, more extrovert than me, more introvert than me, etc. etc. etc. It seems to me that talent and stupidity are pretty well scattered around the world's peoples. Social, educational and political systems that allow talent and skills to develop aren't. That is a simple observation that I would stand by.

Given that, maybe a country that wants to stay on top of the heap should have a system open to talent and abilities whereever they occur and bring them in. Of course, that won't do much for the superior WASP issue.

I don't read posts in this section. I accidentally selected to read this as it was in New Posts and near another one I did mean to read. Thoughtful debate on politicts and religion can be fun, and beneficial, if we each try to keep an open mind to change.

The kind of leader any country needs depends on what goals the country has set for itself.

Do we wish to conquer countries, like Atilla The Hun.

Or do we wish to be at peace with other countries, but protect ourselves from other countries who are being run by their own version of Atilla The Hun.

As the Earth continues to overpopulate, as resources are used up, we move forward into a situation that has never before been experienced by humankind.

Will the future be one of working together, with hope, to solve our common problems and achieve a common goal?

Or will the future be one of fear of the unknown, dog eat dog, king of the mountain, survival of the most powerful?

Every country needs something more than a figurehead. Being "President" isn't good enough. Every country needs a LEADER to lead the people towards common goals.

Problem is, we are a country of people who are split almost in half in our opinions, goals, and objectives. A simple 51% majority, while it decides elections, and might be a majority, won't help this country solve problems or achieve goals......no matter who is elected or what party is in power.

We will be fighting amongst ourselves, casting accusations, verbal stones, and we will not able to work in harmony with ourselves let alone with other countries, and this might distract us from being able to defend ourselves from the Atilla's that are out there, with more to follow.

As they say,

if each of us is not part of the solution,

then each of us is part of the problem.

Yep your post was not half bad, it was actually very good right up to your WASP remark, how sad.

River

...at this point not to concerned about whether it a time for change or not...ahh..but ahh...brother can you spare any change?

(used to call it spanging)

the disgruntled domestic

chilli-

The Lurker (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:58 am Kortpeel-

First, I must address your WASP comment. I would like a clarification. You are aware that WASP is an acronym for White Anglo Saxon Protestant, right?

Yes. I am aware of that

The Lurker (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:58 am Are you suggesting that non-whites and non-Protestants are somehow less able to lead?

No. I am most certainly not suggesting that.

The Lurker (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:58 am Any man (or woman) is truly capable of achieving any goal they set for themselves...

I think that is largely true, provided they make the required commitment.

The Lurker (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:58 am Lose your bigotry and, more importantly, lose your pessimism. It is appalling that a seemingly educated adult could be so short sighted.

What bigotry? What pessimism? Firstly I happen, through the pure chance of birth, to be a white Anglo Saxon protestant. I am quite happy about that and I'm certainly not going to apologise to anyone for it.

On the other hand I do not believe in racial superiority. All races have the same potential. What does make a difference though is culture. I do believe that some cultures are more conducive to progress than others.

Furthermore, as I tried to explain in my initial posting - which you do not seem to have read properly - cultures need to adapt to changing circumstances and if they don't, the people concerned will fall behind those that keep their culture up to date.

Pessimism? If you see a car has a flat tyre is it pessimistic to point out that something needs doing about it? Shouldn't one rather face the fact that a wheel needs changing? Likewise if you see something wrong with the society in which we live isn't it better to point out what is wrong? I do not see anything short sighted about that.

The Lurker (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:58 am It is NEVER as dark as it seems...

Or put it another way: Things are never so bad that they can't get worse. And they almost certainly will if you aren't pro-active about it.

Finally my comment about WASPism. China, Russia and India are all on the move and have fast growing economies and increasing military power. Would you like to see Governor Ivan the Bear sitting in the White House? Or Mandarin Wun Hung Lo or even the Venerable Naidoo in charge?

Dear Lurker, please attack my arguments not me personally. If you think that the US electoral system puts very competent men in office then you are free to differ. Likewise if you think big business is a paragon of decency, honesty and high ethical standards then you are free to argue that point too.

Personally I feel rather hurt that you should accuse me of bigotry and short sightedness on no grounds whatsoever.

Kortpeel

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:17 am I for one would prefer it that WASPs continue to remain powerful in the world. We can only do that by being worthy of the status. Not by divine right.

Kortpeel

I have read it again and it does sound like you are proclaiming white supremacy.

River

Kortpeel-

There is a serious problem here. Either you are unable to clearly explain your ideas. Or you are a bigot of some type. I did not attack you personally, i asked you to explain your words that are clearly racist.

You did not suggest that America regain the leadership role in the world, you suggested that WASP's should. Now if you cannot see how that is a CLEARLY racial statement, then I have no sympathy for your being "hurt" by my post.

There is nothing wrong with being white, nor did I suggest that in any way. What I did was ask for a clarification. You clarified that, yes, you do know what WASP stands for, and then continue to suggest that that statement is not racist. We are all in this together. All of us, not just the white people, everyone who is an American should be invested in our leadership role in the world. Can you not see that?

We, The PEOPLE of These United States, are not by any stretch exclusively WASP. We are people. Of all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds, ethnicities, mixes, genders (Eunuchs Too!), and orientations. We the people of these United States can accomplish ANYTHING we set our minds to.

I will suggest again that you lose your pessimism, and will suggest that you revisit your original post and OWN your words. Either own that you would like white people to be in charge (which is what you said you would prefer) or retract the statement or restate your case.

I am not arguing with your whole post, just the part about wanting white people (because that is what a WASP is) to remain powerful in the world.

If you want AMERICA to remain powerful in the world, then say so, because you never actually say that in your post.

Frankly, what I think you mean (on further reflection) is that you would like western culture to remain powerful in the world. Western culture has been PRIMARILY defined by WASP's. Is that what you mean? Would you like western ideas and peoples to maintain their power in the world? If that is what you REALLY are suggesting, then I agree with your idea, but not your statement, as you chose to define our collective culture in racial terms...