Follow the leader–but which one?

By: Dana Dibble
Posted In: Opinion

Leading is never an easy task. It is always filled with pressure, opportunity and, of course, criticism. Yet, it is honorable and worth every thrilling moment if met with a measure of success.

Leading can be as unique as the individual accepting the responsibility. It comes in varied form, often strong and abrasive, sometimes quietly suggestive _ both effective methods dependent upon those being led.

This prompts the question: How do you define leadership? Is it innate, learned or bred? Does it accompany institutions organized by hierarchy or do those at the top get there because they possess such skill?

This election season most certainly raises such questions and presents voters with yet another stark dichotomy between the presidential candidates.

Leadership suggests the power to influence those who follow, and to confront and control a situation with a confidence and organization that attracts efficiency and compliance.

Most important, leadership in a free society requires respect to be sustained.

The current administration leads this nation with a steadfast, unwavering set of beliefs. There are few issues on which the president’s position cannot be guessed, his decisions are quick and uncompromising.

Upon inauguration, he led as if given a mandate by the American people. In decision-making he relies on a tight, loyal inner circle of advisers like in mind and strong in will.

In his first convention speech Bush stated, “I believe great decisions are made with care, made with conviction, not made at the polls. I do not need to take your pulse before I know my own mind.”

Such certainty is staggering, but it has served the president well, especially in this terror-stricken age of global uncertainty.

On the other side of this excruciatingly tight struggle for popular support sits a man girdled by nuances, deliberative to a T.

John Kerry expects, nearly demands, information from every angle, a thought for each possible outcome and consideration for every side of the story.

His inner circle has a constantly changing face, people flow in and out as often as the issues change. Specific issues demand specific experts and Kerry is not afraid to spend the time to listen. He will unabashedly widen his advisory team depending on the question at hand.

Old friends, former adversaries and odd acquaintances are called to bring their thoughts to the table, though ultimately it is Kerry who internally collects the information, deliberates and decides based on intellect and research.

His trust is given only sparingly, but his ear is widely dispersed. Such open discussion is admirable, especially in a diverse international environment entangled by common interests and the need for cooperation.

Is it a question of principle or a question of style? If leadership truly is the ability to influence those being led, to command respect, then what face does America hope to portray? Is it strongly resolute? Is it cooperatively commanding?

The American president personifies the character of this nation; how he or she leads is indicative of our international disposition.

As such, leadership style must be factored in among the countless other considerations tugging at the minds of voting Americans as they head to the polls this November.

Our leader must command respect at home and abroad, must breed confidence among those who follow and must measure success in the same terms as those he leads.

That said, how will you choose to be led?

Dana Dibble is a writer for NEXT, a Sunday opinion page in The Seattle Times, and a 2004 graduate of the University of Washington. She lives in Seattle. E-mail: NEXT@seattletimes.com

c 2004, The Seattle Times.

Visit The Seattle Times Extra on the World Wide Web at http://www.seattletimes.com/

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.