Visionary Terms

Vision vs. Visionary, the subject in and of itself requires a depth of perception to include logical events as well ideological wishes. How is a candidate to lead if in turn he has focus on the grease of the wheel. In every political campaign there is always a subject to change, yet in our constitution change can only occur through logical steps of inclusion, thus the democratic way. Envision a change in foreign policy without the handshake of England, Germany or Japan? Envision a change in domestic policy without the hand shake of Congress or in most instances Corporate America. Now envision where we stand as a country and all of a sudden the vision is visionary. Why?

Well, we will have to see how the various candidates play out. I think your series may turn out to be a big help. Politics in this country has turned into an incredibly dirty and expensive game, and most of our politicians have been bought by various big business supporters before they ever get inaugurated. It will indeed be something to watch if we can manage to elect an idealist like Obama, to see if even his own party in Congress will work with him. Certainly, the last real outsider to hit the presidency, Jimmy Carter, had a terrible time at least in part because he didn't play the standard political games. However, I agree with you: if we cannot somehow rebuild our trust in our elected officers, from the President on down, and if our President cannot lead us and convince us we are building something better, then this country is in big, big trouble. People will make a lot of sacrifices for something they can believe in; as George W has found out, when people figure out you are lying to them and are manipulating them for your own ends, they tend to get sort of ticked off.

While we promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad

I so so wish this were true. It's the rhetoric but the reality is quite the opposite.

With a visionary President (and Obama may be that person) who can stand up to the vested interests, the US could be such a force for good in the world. *That* would be the New American Century not the torture, support of dictators, arms trade, corruption, undermining of democratic governments who won't play the US game of trade (lay their economies open to rape by multinationals).... well you get the picture.

I note that PNAC's chair is William Kristol. PNAC advocated to Clinton in 1998 "That the United States not allow itself to be "crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council". That's an interesting concept. Odd that unanimity is considered crippling. When I look up unanimity I find the following definition: "Unanimity denotes the obligation to reach a consensus among all the Member States". Looking up consensus, I find "A search for the best decision based on exploring and incorporating everyone's thinking into the final decision", "a collective agreement", I imagine PNAC has achieved those goals but are they the goals that we consider to be primary? Are we better off deciding unanimity is crippling? We are indeed crippled by just the opposite, it seems. We are crippled by our arrogance and unwillingness to consider solutions that take the incorporation of all parties ideas and considerations. By not doing so, we demonstrate a disbelief in the possibility of a win-win outcome. We lose by virture of the disrespect we show other nations, other cultures and those with other beliefs. When we see hostility without wondering why and without looking for some kind of consensus about geopolitical/economic life on the planet, we turn from belief in humane solutions. Instead, the solutions become economic. This is fantastic article, Celestina. Lots to think about. I can only digest a little at a time, so I'll be back.

something in which to believe.

Celestina, thank you. I look forward to more in this series. We all need to think about these things in a very serious way.

Let's not kid ourselves. All politicians are scumbags. It's in the nature of the beast. Thoughtful, decent, moral and ethical beings do not become politicians, simply because they ARE thoughtful, decent, moral and ethical beings. American politics have been corrupt since the outset, despite what we've been taught. The fact is that our country was founded by a bunch of rich white bastards who were pissed off by the fact that they weren't in charge in Europe. So they founded a new country where they could call the shots. But they believed in freedom and equality. For all the rich white bastards.

Alright. That's the end of that tangent. Here's the next one:

America is not now, nor has it ever been, ready for a truly moral leader. First, because the average American is not a moral being. We hate to admit this, but it's true. The average American is lying, thieving, raping, murderous scum, and the only thing that keeps them in line is the threat of retribution. If you don't believe me, look at any situation in American history (or human history, for that matter) in which the rules have been removed. Riots. Wars. What happens? Beatings. Rape. Looting. Arson. In epidemic proportions.

But let's, for the sake of argument, say that the average American is, indeed, a moral being. Even in this fantasy world, we wouldn't be ready for a truly moral leader. Why? Because Americans are intensely lazy. I don't think anyone out there would deny this. But moral leadership would call for a moral nation. And a moral nation would entail hard work on the part of its citizens. And sacrifice. And Americans are not very good at either of these things, unless their creature comforts are threatened.

The sad truth is that the average American really needs only two things: They need to be able to pick up a six-pack on their way home from work, and they their cable to work when they get home. If these two things are in place, they just don't give a @!$%# about anything else.

Celestina, stop making me smarter! My brain is hurting!

Celestina, you are a very talented writer and a great thinker. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with the newsvine community. I agree that the US needs to shift direction and come up with a new vision for its global role. We cannot afford to be so US-centric anymore ...

Ah, vision. In my opinion what separates Barack Obama from the other candidates is an inclusive, forward-thinking vision. We all know that he packages his vision in 'hope', which I think is kind of a cop-out (who doesn't hope?), and then lays out the groundwork for what he'd like to accomplish. Having a series of conversations on what we see as our newsvine vision, our "Vinision" (not a very good neoligism, I know), is probably a good idea. We really shouldn't be signing onto a candidate's vision unless we know how it gels with our own.

You offer an interesting point of comparison, the PNAC document. Ironically, Obama's website lists "Strengthening America Overseas" as his first priority. Though I think it's safe to guess he would go about acheiving that goal in a different manner than dubya did. Which brings me to what I think is the most important aspect of our next leader, the shadow of our current leader. I honestly think the best vision for our future is setting goals to make George Bush's administration as much of an historical aberration as possible.

The 44th presidency of the US could be divisive and bitter if, after Bush leaves the Oval Office, we spend the next four years arguing about the degree to which he broke our government. Our next leader has to lay out how we're going to move forward not fight over how we got here.