You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him. –James D. Miles
We all believe we have it. We profess our virtues because of it. We talk about it. We want others to believe we have it. We are comfortable displaying it if the threat of employing it is marginal. It is not for the morally languid, as the greater its strength, the greater the assumed responsibility.
Character: the synergistic power of a man’s morals, honor, ethics, honesty, courage, integrity, and loyalty.
We are subtly coerced into believing it exists in people by their fabricated disclosures of its existence during superficial conversations. But, a man’s character cannot be affirmed by his tongue; it can only be affirmed by virtue of his ability to weather formidable challenges or the seduction of temptation. It is at this juncture where character intersects with adversity and temptation, that the conviction, depth, and strength of character will either manifest or recoil back into the recesses of non-existence. To truly know a man’s character, its existence must be witnessed during and after tribulation or temptation.
A man’s character can be gauged by his prolonged application of morals, honor, ethics, honesty, courage, and integrity; regardless the challenge, the consistency of his reaction will always be a constant if guided by fundamentally sound character.
At varying occasions during the course of life, a man should have witnessed, held in reverence, and been left with a permanent effect by virtue of the commanding strength of character of someone facing tribulation of insurmountable odds, or the strength to dismiss seemingly irresistible temptation. Few things in life are more humbling than witnessing this authentication of character, and doubting one’s own capability of duplicating the strength of character needed for confronting equal circumstances.
We have all witnessed, much too often, the destructive wake left by someone with a destitute character. The agonizing effect is compounded when the wake of destruction, and its repercussions, entangle those swindled by the proselytizer of character, and are then carried en masse into the abyss of beguiled.
Those who bemoan their abated status and circumstances in life can determine the cause and effect of their undesirable condition by examining the constitution of their character. A man’s station in life, his fate, is generally determined by the quality of his character. Displays of character are generally a private matter, as the manifestation of character, without witnesses, is the signature of fortitude of character, and it is this private honing of character that creates the unmistakable omnipotent presence of character felt by those in proximity.
What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader? The answer to this question was deliberated as far back as Plato’s Republic. Martin Chemers describes leadership in the following manner: “Leadership is the process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.”
The possession of strong character does not necessarily make a great leader, but it is paramount that a great leader possess depth of character.
America’s presidents are affirmatively referred to as leaders of the free world, the most powerful leaders in the world. Is this a truth with an absolute foundation? Though the United States is the most powerful country in the world, does that make the president the de facto leader of the free world? Is Barack Obama the leader of the most powerful country in the world? Is he the leader of the free world? The answer is a resounding no. He is the president of the United States, but he is not the leader. To be a leader, one needs followers, not a splintered, mathematical minority of followers, but a sound majority. Is there a common goal or agenda towards which he is leading a unified nation? Again, a resounding no. Obama’s leadership qualities have been quite the opposite. He has divided and splintered this country, and continues still either from contempt or ineptness. Obama’s genuine agenda, as it becomes discoverable by his actions, was cloaked by strategic prevarications during his campaign. Obama has become the most divisive president this country has elected; any other president would be considered produced by this country, but Obama, with his still murky origins, must be relegated to elected rather than produced.
In an interview with the Hispanic station Univision, Barack Obama referred to over half of this nation as enemies; based on the overwhelming majority win by conservatives on November 2nd, he has professed publicly that conservatives and those who share the characteristics of the Founding Fathers are the enemies of him and Hispanics: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.’” So stated the enemy of American values.
Leaders in possession of transcendent character will take responsibility for their failures, and will disperse their achievements among instrumental subordinates. Barack Obama’s incessant blaming of his leadership impotence and failed policies on his predecessor, George Bush, almost two years into his administration, is emblematic of imaginary character, or character of disrepute–and categorically compromised leadership competence.
Raymond Cattell established eight traits that comprise effective leaders with his Leadership Potential Equation in 1954. The study of successful military leaders’ traits was the bedrock of the equation. The analytical rational for using this study is twofold: it is still in use today, and it antedates, by ten years, the systematic start of the erosion of America’s values and morality. It is a measure of what constitutes character and leadership. Cattell’s eight traits are as follows:
- Emotional stability. Good leaders must be able to tolerate frustration and stress. Overall, they must be well-adjusted and have the psychological maturity to deal with anything they are required to face.
- Dominance. Leaders are often times competitive and decisive and usually enjoy overcoming obstacles. Overall, they are assertive in their thinking style as well as their attitude in dealing with others.
- Enthusiasm. Leaders are usually seen as active, expressive, and energetic. They are often very optimistic and open to change. Overall, they are generally quick and alert and tend to be uninhibited.
- Conscientiousness. Leaders are often dominated by a sense of duty and tend to be very exacting in character. They usually have a very high standard of excellence and an inward desire to do one’s best. They also have a need for order and tend to be very self-disciplined.
- Social boldness. Leaders tend to be spontaneous risk-takers. They are usually socially aggressive and generally thick-skinned. Overall, they are responsive to others and tend to be high in emotional stamina.
- Tough-mindedness. Good leaders are practical, logical, and to-the-point. They tend to be low in sentimental attachments and comfortable with criticism. They are usually insensitive to hardship and overall, are very poised.
- Self-assurance. Self-confidence and resiliency are common traits among leaders. They tend to be free of guilt and have little or no need for approval. They are generally secure and free from guilt and are usually unaffected by prior mistakes or failures.
- Compulsiveness. Leaders were found to be controlled and very precise in their social interactions. Overall, they were very protective of their integrity and reputation and consequently tended to be socially aware and careful, abundant in foresight, and very careful when making decisions or determining specific actions.
A simple perfunctory analysis of Barack Obama’s actions as President, his voting record as an Illinois and U.S. senator, his sanctimonious lambasting of America’s Constitution–this country’s soul, fundamental values, beliefs, history–and his leadership qualifications that are barren of the slightest implication of the eight leadership traits listed, illuminates a severely corrupt character. Aggregate these transgressions of character with Obama’s inexhaustible ego, which is reinforced by an intelligence of legend, but when forthrightly examined, is apocryphal at best, and devoid of substantiation at worse, and the aftermath of a virtuoso of failure is who this country elected in 2008, and the unrepresented post-haste correction is what this country experienced November 2.
It would be fallacious to classify Barack Obama as the leader of the United States, and preposterous to characterize him as the leader of the free world. He is the elected president of the United States burdened by a handicapped character that has always precluded him from being an effective, much less great, leader. But he does lead. His pursuers consist of various colonies of radical dissenters of ethicalness whose ideology he shares, an ideology that has been aborted by axiological fundamentals since recorded history. Although he has failed as a leader, he still maintains consistently 90% approval in the black community, and based on the unwavering support regardless of his actions, can continue to lean on that crutch through eternity.
Who is not following Barack Obama the leader? He is not followed by his enemies, who consist of conservatives, patriots, and loyalists, who are the bedrock of this country’s foundation and revere the founding principles of this country, and on display November 2nd, they are the overwhelming majority of this country. They are who Barack Obama has proclaimed as enemies, and he does not possess the character to lead them.
In summary, Barack Obama is not leader of the United States of America. He has yet to display the morals, honor, ethics, honesty, courage, integrity, and loyalty needed to lead the majority of Americans towards a unified common goal, and with his devoid character, he most certainly is not my leader.