Oct 18

National Politicians May (Not) Be Global Leaders

Note: This post is not about Sarah Palin. Some of her recent expressions are merely grist for the leadership mill. My intention is that this post be about the distinction between a national politician and world leader, between parochial and inclusive, about individualism and collectivism (or communitarianism, more accurately), between a closed and an open system, about globalization and our role in it.

LINK: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/16/europe.palin.oakley/index.html?iref=newssearch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The issue discussed in this CNN article is not parochialism, per se. It is an apparent disinterest in being part of the world community, a world conversation, a globalization reality (beyond being the victim of terrorism) which, as this article points out, America is, whether (some of) its (potential) leaders want it to be or not. National politicians, in order to be leaders, and have global standing and influence, need not be worldly. But, they need to be deeply interested in, intrigued by, and curious about the points of view, needs, responsibilities, and rights of others far beyond those in their nation’s borders. If our national politicians fail or refuse to rise to those criteria, (which this article says are standards in the eyes of Europeans), they will fail us, and the whole world community, and undermine our potential for positive influence in the world even more than it has been undermined in recent years.

Global leadership