What a guy!  Our Duffy, eh?  Years and years as a supposedly neutral news reporter who was, while working into our hearts and minds, selling himself to the highest bidder.  Seems the Cons bid the most.  Maybe it was a two-fer with Pam, hard to say?  Still, Duffy and Wallin sold their soul and jumped to the front of the trough and all they had to do was stump for the Cons.

Isn’t that weird?  What were the Cons thinking?  “Hmmm, here’s a guy and a gal who all Canadians accept as neutral truth-tellers and, God knows, we could use some of that in the party. Let’s go buy them!”

“But, sir, as soon as they are bought and paid for, wouldn’t that undermine their image as neutral truth-tellers and, in fact, make them out to be hypocritical liars and cynical in the extreme?  Wouldn’t we lose both ways, getting such horrible people and then losing what little credibility they may have?”

But they did it anyway.  Harper’s idea of leadership.  And then Duffy and Pam’s elitist, pampered, selfish, ugly sides showed up and it was a bit embarrassing even for the idiot Cons who can’t spell financial management let alone demonstrate it.  So, they tried to sweep them under the carpet.  How stupid is that?  They could much more easily have made political hay, gotten rid of them and actually looked good in the doing.  But they chose to be weasels instead.  Leadership from the shadows.

Stephen Harper could have said:

“My fellow Canadians of this great country and with all of us going forward….to….well, uh, the end of the day…we have to be accountable to our citizens and I am sorry to have to report that two (or four or ten – he can pretty much pick any number from his group) of our senators have violated the ‘spirit and intention’ of public service and, even tho there was no law proven as yet to have been broken, the morality and the indulgence, the sense of entitlement and greed nauseates me as your prime minister.  So, I have asked for their resignation.  In fact, my aid, Nigel Wright and I have offered the senate accounts committee the money to ‘pay back’ for their selfishness and their disregard for doing the right thing.  I have no idea how things got this bad but I’d rather pay this debt from our own pocket than have the Canadian public go through it.  Can you imagine all the piggy behaviour that might come from others if this kind of thing goes to trial?  It’ll cost us all a fortune!  And take forever.  All I can add going forward is that maybe we will go backwards some day.  Just for a change.  Start at the beginning of the day, ya know?  And, when we do, we’ll pick better people for the senate.  We will pick honest, unselfish Canadians who recognize their primary duty to serve others and not take for themselves.” 

And he would have looked good doing it.

But, you see, saying that kind of thing and doing that kind of thing requires leadership and our politicians don’t lead.  They follow.  The best they can do is react because they do not ACT.  Had Harper shown some strength of character and leadership, the Duffy issue would have won him votes, not lost him any.  As it is, he is likely to skate by using the plausible deniability clause (AKA: permission to lie and cheat on someone else’s account). But I mention it because this is the crap that passes for leadership in Canada these days.

“Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.”  Warren Bennis

“……leaders will be those who empower others.” Bill Gates

“Leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.”  John Maxwell

Which of our great leaders is doing any of that?

10 thoughts on “Leadership

  1. I agree whole hearted with your views. Leadership is the exercise of influence. Influence requires relationships and those are built one friend at a time. The exercise of raw coercive power moves no one except those at the point of a gun. Sadly the bullies of the world think that coercion is leadership. Ms May would work harmoniously (cue the mocking laughter) however, Ms May is completely correct. Her style of leadership would require many more un-whipped votes in parliament. Contrast her way to the talking points parliament where toeing the line is paramount and has created a non-constructive ethos with hardened positions and a mocking disregard for competing opinions.


    • I honestly do not think that only you and I (and a few readers) feel this way. Most people think leadership is a noble pursuit, and should never be just a power-grab. Real leaders ‘do’ for others and pursue ‘good causes’. They show initiative, creativity, flexibility, awareness, common sense and, above all else, unselfishness. In the mythical ‘old days’ failed leaders fell on their swords in shame. Our leaders throw someone else under the bus instead. Why can’t everyone see the difference and demand better?


      • ‘The myth of the altruistic leader!’ The French Philosophes claimed that the actions of humanity consist of ‘informed self interest’ not altruism. I think the Philosophes are correct but many strongly disagree because the behaviour looks like altruism. But the Philosophes argue that such behaviour also contains within it less obvious motivations like building influence. I realize this is a challenging view but it explains a segment of human motivations among others.


        • I’ve heard that. We are all selfish. But I don’t buy it. It is just academic-speak trying to figure out what motivates goodness. I think goodness is inherent in most people. Plain and simple.


          • Not a big fan of innate inborn qualities so I assume that the virtues are taught and rewarded as part of social learning. I think all qualities are learned but are often claimed under the banner of innate. I know many many folks will disagree but I not trying to change any one’s views.


          • Well, think of it this way….we are ‘social animals’. That has to mean something…it likely means ‘innate’ or ‘inherent’ behavioral traits like sharing or protection of the weak and that sort of thing. Tribal. Now is that learned? Or is that inherent in the animal at a core gene level? Birth. I claim the latter. You claim the former. But, if it is learned, then the learning comes early. And what about ants and bees and flocks of birds? Didn’t they come with inherent ant-bee-bird qualities?


  2. Unfortunately
    Honest leaders wont last a nanosecond in todays ” 60 second sound bite” world.

    Even Winston Churchill wouldnt get elected these days.

    “Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.

    Winston Churchill 1952


    • Here we are again. I agree. But NOT as MUCH. I believe an honest person will, if surrounded by honest people who care about others, make a positive change. In fact, I think they do it all the time. The difference is in the system in which they are acting. The older the institution, the more corrupt it is. Those who founded an ‘institution’ or a ‘society’ or an NGO did so with good intentions and worked selflessly to get it going. Withing a few years, others are hired who work for money NOT just good intentions. If they are still successful, they hire others who work for money only and hate every minute at work. The institution begins to rot. But remember: it started with GOOD intentions. That is why change and revolution is so necessary – to keep the ideals alive. Amen, brother! Keep SOME faith!


  3. The nature/nurture discussion. The can not help ones self or ought to know better. The rubber duck in a mill race… Choices, priorities, self selecting not so much.


  4. Pingback: SURVIVALISTS BLOG | Leadership | Off the Grid Living

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.