Tuesday, November 29, 2016
How to Select an American President: Temperament vs Character
How to Select an American President: Temperament vs Character: Presidential historian, Doris Goodwin said to David Axelrod, "I think overcoming adversity is an extraordinarily important trait for a...
Temperament vs Character
Presidential historian, Doris Goodwin said to David Axelrod, "I think overcoming adversity is an extraordinarily important trait for a leader." She also described "the positive transformations some of our presidents underwent after being struck by tragedy -- FDR's polio made him feel more connected to people; Lincoln's bouts of depression made him more empathetic; Teddy Roosevelt's personal losses gave him needed perspective." Donald Trump had large financial losses that he overcame with help from the US tax code. Apparently, that counts.
In my new book, How to Select an American President by James George with James Rodger (c)2017, Archway Publishing, there is the consideration for presidential candidate behavior. Not being a psychologist, I defer to members of that profession for a certifiable profile of candidates, similar to what many corporations require when hiring high-level executives.
Goodwin is not a behavioral scientist either. What is the difference between "temperament" and "character?"
Temperament may be defined as the combination of mental, physical, and emotional traits of a person; natural predisposition. If one reviews President-elect Donald Trump's history of temperament, you will discover a consistent pattern of disruptive behavior that is often mitigated with intervention and assistance of powerful people to cover and absolve his wayward mistakes. You can verify that yourself and may have witnessed such behavior during the campaign.
What is character? Character is the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing. To understand the composition of such things: qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity, requires professional assessment.
"Character matters: Character dimensions’ impact on leader performance and outcomes
Gerard Seijts
Article (PDF Available) in Organizational Dynamics 44(1) · January 2015: DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2014.11.008
Abstract
In a recent commencement address at the Ivey Business School, Domenic Barton, the head of McKinsey Et Co.'s global consulting practice, said: "When we think about leadership we focus too much on what leaders do... and we don't spend enough time on who leaders are the character of leaders." Similarly, in a speech to Ivey students, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, said that "... to restore trust in banks and in the broader financial system, global financial institutions need to rediscover their values... Employees need a sense of broader purpose, grounded in strong connections to their clients and their communities." Few among the hundreds of C-suite leaders and board directors with whom we have discussed this topic in focus groups sessions, conferences, and executive development programs over the last five years, would disagree with them."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270397738_Character_matters_Character_dimensions'_impact_on_leader_performance_and_outcomes
Image from Salon.com
Monday, November 28, 2016
How to Select an American President: Trump is a propagandist
How to Select an American President: Trump is a propagandist: When the US President and his government engage in propaganda, what does that mean? First, propaganda is information, especially of a bias...
Trump is a propagandist
When the US President and his government engage in propaganda, what does that mean?
First, propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. In this instance, Trump would like Americans to believe that he won the popular vote and the electoral vote. According to multiple news sources including the President-elect's tweets, he claims widespread voter fraud propelled Hillary Clinton into the popular vote lead. If that were the case, then why would he not want an investigation?
Here is an email message from the Huffington Post.
The headline here is not just about the accuracy of the vote count. If Trump pressed for an accurate count amid allegations of voter fraud, then that would be warranted. Instead, he made a wild claim without any basis in fact. That is propaganda.
Authoritarian, tyrannical leaders employ propaganda. Is history making a repeat here?
First, propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. In this instance, Trump would like Americans to believe that he won the popular vote and the electoral vote. According to multiple news sources including the President-elect's tweets, he claims widespread voter fraud propelled Hillary Clinton into the popular vote lead. If that were the case, then why would he not want an investigation?
Here is an email message from the Huffington Post.
"THE AFTERMATH OF DONALD TRUMP'S FALSE POPULAR VOTE CLAIMS The president-elect tweeted Sunday that "millions of people who voted illegally" were the reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote after responding to a recount push in three states. The tweet appears to be based in a stat circulating from Infowars. And here's how the media plays into tweets like this. [Michael Calderone, HuffPost]"
The headline here is not just about the accuracy of the vote count. If Trump pressed for an accurate count amid allegations of voter fraud, then that would be warranted. Instead, he made a wild claim without any basis in fact. That is propaganda.
Authoritarian, tyrannical leaders employ propaganda. Is history making a repeat here?
"Propaganda in Nazi Germany
From theholocaustexplained.org
Goebbels, Hitler's chief propagandist
Goebbels sought to Nazify the whole of German culture, wiping away what Hitler saw as the ‘decadence’ of 1920s Weimar Germany, painting instead a picture of a Germany with traditional values and with Hitler as the beloved Führer.
The promotion of Nazi racial policy was at the very centre of Goebbels’s message.
The re-writing of school books and the production of antisemitic books, films and exhibitions supported this policy.
In 1929, Hitler chose Josef Goebbels as his Minister of Propaganda. Goebbels developed extremely successful campaigns using simple slogans and images repeated over and again in order to win public support for the party. The Nazis spent huge sums on newspapers, leaflets and poster campaigns.
Once the Nazis came to power Goebbels developed the Nazi’s use of propaganda to even greater effect. He orchestrated large political military ‘rallies’ to build support. These were vast, highly organised events with banners and marching bands. Using his own skills of oratory Hitler appealed to the patriotism of the German people.
Mass media
Control of the mass media was at the heart of Goebbels plan as he developed the cult of personality around Hitler. The rallies and Hitler’s speeches were broadcast on radio, purchased very cheaply as they were produced by the state."
https://grandmageri422.me/2016/10/23/the-propaganda-of-tyrants-networking-lies-to-the-masses/
Was the election rigged?
First to introduce the idea that the American election system is rigged was President-elect, Donald Trump. That happened when he believed that he might lose.
Pundits and politicians mostly scoffed at the notion of large-scale voter fraud because the facts do not support those accusations. Another variable became apparent when WikiLeaks introduced private emails that they allegedly obtained through Russian sources. US Government Investigators confirmed that indications pointed to efforts by the Russians and sources close to Vladimir Putin to interfere in the American election process.
How were they doing that? First, evidence now shows that there was a concerted "fake news" campaign directed to undermine Hillary Clinton. Other, less conspicuous indicators lay in the cyber world where some computer experts believe that some outside source attempted to manipulate election results at voting locations in the US.
If any political party, elected official, or voters had any indication about the following, the proper action would be to call law enforcement and initiate legal action:
1. Donald Trump alleged widespread voter fraud.
2. Hillary Clinton alleged Russian interference in collaboration with WikiLeaks.
3. Both now claim possible manipulation of results and voter fraud.
Since Hillary Clinton conceded the election to Donald Trump, there are new data and evidence that characterize the process and cast doubt about the outcome.
1. The national vote tabulations indicate that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin.
2. Indications in some states where the vote count are statistically close point to possible irregularities.
President-elect Trump's response is mixed, claiming that he disputes the national tabulation and claims to be the victor of the popular vote. Why does it matter? It matters because a big win in the popular vote may constitute a mandate for Trump policies that he otherwise would not have.
Trump claims that the national count is inaccurate. If so, then he should call for a recount. He doesn't because he has already won the electoral college vote, and that is definitive.
However, if there is fraud, manipulation, or inaccuracies in competitive states, then a recount is warranted. Before moving on, part of the American process is to get the count correct.
It isn't so much a question about rigging as it is about getting an accurate count of the votes. Is there evidence of wrong-doing?
Pundits and politicians mostly scoffed at the notion of large-scale voter fraud because the facts do not support those accusations. Another variable became apparent when WikiLeaks introduced private emails that they allegedly obtained through Russian sources. US Government Investigators confirmed that indications pointed to efforts by the Russians and sources close to Vladimir Putin to interfere in the American election process.
How were they doing that? First, evidence now shows that there was a concerted "fake news" campaign directed to undermine Hillary Clinton. Other, less conspicuous indicators lay in the cyber world where some computer experts believe that some outside source attempted to manipulate election results at voting locations in the US.
If any political party, elected official, or voters had any indication about the following, the proper action would be to call law enforcement and initiate legal action:
1. Donald Trump alleged widespread voter fraud.
2. Hillary Clinton alleged Russian interference in collaboration with WikiLeaks.
3. Both now claim possible manipulation of results and voter fraud.
Since Hillary Clinton conceded the election to Donald Trump, there are new data and evidence that characterize the process and cast doubt about the outcome.
1. The national vote tabulations indicate that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin.
2. Indications in some states where the vote count are statistically close point to possible irregularities.
President-elect Trump's response is mixed, claiming that he disputes the national tabulation and claims to be the victor of the popular vote. Why does it matter? It matters because a big win in the popular vote may constitute a mandate for Trump policies that he otherwise would not have.
Trump claims that the national count is inaccurate. If so, then he should call for a recount. He doesn't because he has already won the electoral college vote, and that is definitive.
However, if there is fraud, manipulation, or inaccuracies in competitive states, then a recount is warranted. Before moving on, part of the American process is to get the count correct.
It isn't so much a question about rigging as it is about getting an accurate count of the votes. Is there evidence of wrong-doing?
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Progressive Insurrectionist
Americans today are ostensibly divided into different camps. There are different ways to define and segregate the audiences. While I consider the marketing plan for my new book, How to Select an American President by James George with James Rodger (c) 2017, Archway Publishing, it is necessary to gain understanding about who will be most inclined to read it.
I wrote the book as objectively as I could. However, I am a progressive liberal by known definitions.
Author, David Sirota wrote in the Huffington Post saying that being progressive and being liberal are two different things.
Therefore, I wrote my book for people who are aligned with those ideas.
Who are they?
Most likely, my audience includes everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton for President and those who are progressive insurrectionists. It could also include conservative insurrectionists to the extent that both want to address the need for changes and improvements in the American Political System. Everything is on the table from fixing parts of it to defenestration.
Using the word "insurrection." is halting because the definition includes a range of possibilities: rebellion, revolt, uprising, mutiny, revolution, insurgency, riot, sedition, and subversion. To be clear, I believe that citizens have every right to criticize and pushback against the major political parties. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have failed to perform acceptably to produce superior candidates for President. Furthermore, there is a systemic flaw common to both sides about how parties and their constituents evaluate all candidates for elected offices.
As an author and independent journalist, I am not attacking my government or seeking to subvert or overthrow it, not even close. My focus is on the performance of political parties and the behavior of citizen voters where it is essential to make improvements in the process and to develop new standards for acceptable operation.
I wrote the book as objectively as I could. However, I am a progressive liberal by known definitions.
Author, David Sirota wrote in the Huffington Post saying that being progressive and being liberal are two different things.
"The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional “liberals” in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A “progressive” are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.htmlFollowing that distinction, yes, I believe that investing taxpayer money to improve society is acceptable to some extent. I also believe that government must regulate society to ensure that public and private corporations operate by the rule of law and abide by legislated rules.
Therefore, I wrote my book for people who are aligned with those ideas.
Who are they?
Most likely, my audience includes everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton for President and those who are progressive insurrectionists. It could also include conservative insurrectionists to the extent that both want to address the need for changes and improvements in the American Political System. Everything is on the table from fixing parts of it to defenestration.
Using the word "insurrection." is halting because the definition includes a range of possibilities: rebellion, revolt, uprising, mutiny, revolution, insurgency, riot, sedition, and subversion. To be clear, I believe that citizens have every right to criticize and pushback against the major political parties. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have failed to perform acceptably to produce superior candidates for President. Furthermore, there is a systemic flaw common to both sides about how parties and their constituents evaluate all candidates for elected offices.
As an author and independent journalist, I am not attacking my government or seeking to subvert or overthrow it, not even close. My focus is on the performance of political parties and the behavior of citizen voters where it is essential to make improvements in the process and to develop new standards for acceptable operation.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Importance of Character
Individual character is the mental and moral qualities that define a person. When evaluating candidates for public office, understanding an individual's character is a starting position. Character assessment is a challenging task for voters in a democratic, pluralistic republic. What makes it so?
By way of comparison, when corporations embark upon the task of recruiting and filling management positions, the initiative is supported by human resources professionals. For significant management positions, a corporation may hire a psychologist to help perform an assessment that results in a profile.
The VIA Institute on Character describes "personality" as the total of our psychological makeup and how we uniquely express ourselves in the world. It is the pattern of emotional qualities, behaviors, thoughts, feelings, attitudes and habits that make us who we are. But for many of us, it can be difficult to describe our personality.
When citizen-voters evaluate candidates for public office, what do they have to go on? Otherwise, what are the sources of evidence and facts that define the prospective candidate?
A candidate's resume is the starting position. What have they accomplished in their lifecycle to date? Is there sufficient evidence to support the claims? Does the candidate have references who can provide relevant insight about them? What is relevant?
It may seem obvious, but candidates for public office should not have a legacy of financial and legal difficulties that might compromise their integrity in their position. A candidate should have a clean record. They should not have conflicts of interest. Trusted and certified sources make those determinations and declarations.
What is the process in the American political system that supports voters and ensures candidate viability and integrity?
This is a new avenue for research and evaluation.
By way of comparison, when corporations embark upon the task of recruiting and filling management positions, the initiative is supported by human resources professionals. For significant management positions, a corporation may hire a psychologist to help perform an assessment that results in a profile.
The VIA Institute on Character describes "personality" as the total of our psychological makeup and how we uniquely express ourselves in the world. It is the pattern of emotional qualities, behaviors, thoughts, feelings, attitudes and habits that make us who we are. But for many of us, it can be difficult to describe our personality.
When citizen-voters evaluate candidates for public office, what do they have to go on? Otherwise, what are the sources of evidence and facts that define the prospective candidate?
A candidate's resume is the starting position. What have they accomplished in their lifecycle to date? Is there sufficient evidence to support the claims? Does the candidate have references who can provide relevant insight about them? What is relevant?
It may seem obvious, but candidates for public office should not have a legacy of financial and legal difficulties that might compromise their integrity in their position. A candidate should have a clean record. They should not have conflicts of interest. Trusted and certified sources make those determinations and declarations.
What is the process in the American political system that supports voters and ensures candidate viability and integrity?
This is a new avenue for research and evaluation.
Image from: http://www.accreditedschoolsonline.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)