That is right - change w/o competence is at best an empty word.

This said, there are different levels of competence. The "measurable" competence is one which is "data-driven". This is the competence of a manager that has the pulse of an organization, at work on keeping the organization running towards stated goals and within stated constraints.

This sort of competence - the one of a manager - is NOT the one of a leader. A leader must define visions and objectives and orchestrate the dynamics around him/her, motivate and set people around to help set the goals - those goals that managers will then strive to meet.

A leader deals in the invisible - goals and risks, values, structures.
A manager deals more in the visible.

To select a good leader one must look at
1. The 'character' of the candidate; and in particular his/her capability to appreciate the bigger picture, his appreciation for intelligence and abstract decision making values.

2. his/her own courage and determination to follow on good paths, irrespective of quandaries of popularity.

A leader should indeed set an expectation that the search for intelligent and moral solutions, as well as courageous follow-through are going to be determining values in his/her presidency. Those who in their past lives essentially did not have the courage to oppose power cannot themselves be good leaders.

3. To mitigate the necessary limitations of the individuals, the leader of the future should also have an appreciation for collective decision making that would support his/her global impetus. That is the staff of the future - where personal vision is complemented by appreciation of the collective.

In today's roster of candidates essentially most fail the test of character - a successful leader is one that must have had the courage to resist the temptation of popularity.

That is right - change w/o competence is at best an empty word.

This said, there are different levels of competence. The "measurable" competence is one which is "data-driven". This is the competence of a manager that has the pulse of an organization, at work on keeping the organization running towards stated goals and within stated constraints.

This sort of competence - the one of a manager - is NOT the one of a leader. A leader must define visions and objectives and orchestrate the dynamics around him/her, motivate and set people around to help set the goals - those goals that managers will then strive to meet.

A leader deals in the invisible - goals and risks, values, structures.
A manager deals more in the visible.

To select a good leader one must look at
1. The 'character' of the candidate; and in particular his/her capability to appreciate the bigger picture, his appreciation for intelligence and abstract decision making values.

2. his/her own courage and determination to follow on good paths, irrespective of quandaries of popularity.

A leader should indeed set an expectation that the search for intelligent and moral solutions, as well as courageous follow-through are going to be determining values in his/her presidency. Those who in their past lives essentially did not have the courage to oppose power cannot themselves be good leaders.

3. To mitigate the necessary limitations of the individuals, the leader of the future should also have an appreciation for collective decision making that would support his/her global impetus. That is the staff of the future - where personal vision is complemented by appreciation of the collective.

In today's roster of candidates essentially most fail the test of character - a successful leader is one that must have had the courage to resist the temptation of popularity.

David, Bush Administration ran on ethical and moral change after they violated the privacy of the Clinton Bedroom.

Fact is that as far as public safety goes, I give the Bush Administration a "D-". Only reason I do not give them a failing grade is that the verdict is out whether or not Bush Administration with a "One-Percent" Threat Homeland Security model worked. I for myself believe in quality over quanity.

Failures in public safety protections include Border securtiy, Healthcare, Crime, Crime Prevention, crime due to economic failures, 09/11 itself, their watch. I would also point to global incidence of terrorism increases through exciting the fires of Middle East instability and tension due to Cowboy Diplomacy and Cowboy Contract Negoiation (sp).

Remember, according to State Department policy (which kind of aligned itself with PNAC) the goal was to stabilize the Middle East by overthrowing the Hussein Regime. Clinton was the first to keep a watchful eye on UBL and al-queda back to 1992 I believe. They tried to take him out after USS Cole bombing, no thanks to FBI. And were national security assets diverted pre 09/11, more can be revealed.

Remember McCain's off the cuff tune, "Bomb, bomb bomb, Iran" ? Or not taking the flack from a Highschool student, he quipped something about a military draft ? Or not caring if we are involved in another Cold-War this one lasting up to 100 years if need be ? Save it for a rainy day John, you are obsolete too.

Bush Administration lacked foresight while self-professing their false enlightenment in someone's upcoming book. Obama has yet to demonstrate the quality of foresight to me. Clintons have demonstrated time and time again their foresight in action even though most of the old school (like Fred Thompson) resented her as a First Lady Activist.

I find a mini stock market crash on Super Tuesday to be a very serendipitous event indeed. We must predict that further improvements will be made to history through discovery empowered by competition of the election process itself.

I could make few predictions myself but I continue to watch the watchers trying to infuse some quality in political journalism itself. And finally, the old school does not neccessarily equate to physical age. Observing the Senate obsessively for some 1457 days now and counting, shows mean there is a big difference between elder statesmen and political sheeples of any age.

David,

I am in agreement with you. The United States needs a president that promotes know-how in both government and business. At the end of day the newly elected president, no matter who it is, will have to work with Washington (the permanent government and all those who have been there for years). I understand how difficult this is going to be as I worked in Washington for a number of years before moving into the corporate world.

I would like to see change, but more than that I would to see a U.S. government that works for its people. I want to see our leaders make decisions that benefit our country. Right now we see too many decisions that illustrate a management style that is indicative of an inexperienced young man, not highly experienced and well educated leaders. More than change, we need experience and competence leaders that care

Thanks for pointing out the empty rhetoric of "change." I personally think it is all due to TV and the fact that even politics has become entertainment. What I want someone to tell us is that we need more FREEDOM - in every sense of the word.

Tired, old, outdated, cynical reaction to people's desire to have actual political and social change. Fat corporations and corrupt politicians of both parties will applaud. Both Democratic candidates are competent, but only Obama is the disruptive force that can slice through the criminal empowerment of greed (think sub-prime crisis) and incompetence (think Iraq and Katrina). Try some intellectual Viagra, David!

You're lucky;our attention span in NZ is 10 seconds and these people that plan our future are paid $ks a week whilst some of us are on a few hundred.
The only real change that occurs is that prices go up.
The revolution can't be too far away.
Regards

Although it is tempting to label the current groundswell of support for Barack Obama's change-based ticket just another case of change for change's sake, I would suggest that this situation is very different from AOL TimeWarner's merger, for example. The latter was clearly a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But politically speaking we have a real problem. Mounting debt, both public and private; a falling dollar due to this debt increase and also to erosion of America's competitive position in a globalizing economy; a war in Iraq with no end in sight; and an administration that has consistently twisted the rules--including the bill of rights--in order to get its way. This is clearly not a case of "change for change's sake."

Yes, David we need a president.....As they tell us in the airplanes, if the 'breathing masks' are needed, you as the adult place yours first so that you can then best take care of your own family,,,,,
Our nation's leaders have lost sight of securing our own nation,
morally and physically, (i.e. giving away our own manufacturing
jobs) and poked their noses into 'securing our oil supplies' as the excuses to have walked away from our own needs. Morally, we lose 'face' as we support obvious despots when our leaders
insist these same despots need of American taxpayer's monies....And, in doing so, we have now lost the respect of many of the world's democracies. I, too, am ashamed of for my
country's immoral direction. We are best able to help others when we are secure and advanced in our own borders, first.
Yes, David, we definitely need change!

Yes, David we need a president.....As they tell us in the airplanes, if the 'breathing masks' are needed, you as the adult place yours first so that you can then best take care of your own family,,,,,
Our nation's leaders have lost sight of securing our own nation,
morally and physically, (i.e. giving away our own manufacturing
jobs) and poked their noses into 'securing our oil supplies' as the excuses to have walked away from our own needs. Morally, we lose 'face' as we support obvious despots when our leaders
insist these same despots need of American taxpayer's monies....And, in doing so, we have now lost the respect of many of the world's democracies. I, too, am ashamed of for my
country's immoral direction. We are best able to help others when we are secure and advanced in our own borders, first.
Yes, David, we definitely need change!

The only change we need in government is a restored appreciation for Truth and Rightousness. Not only is the denial of them ungodly, it is unproductive.

How much effort is wasted observing the taboos surrounding adherence to false-elite propaganda: That Bush did "not" commit 9-11, or that his grandfather really was "not" Hitler's banker?

Wouldn't it be simpler, and make us proud as a People, to finally confront George H.W. Bush's proven guilt in the assassination of President Kennedy by the Knight of Malta-led Roman Catholic CIA that sent 58,000 of us to die in the papal fiefdom of Indochina?

This is not simply restored "competence," this is Righteousness and Justice under which we can Prosper in accordance with Our Motto - Annuit Coeptis. For to be American should again be recognized as a Virtue.

George W. Bush, "Junior" to one of JFK's killers, committed 9-11...anyone can read Professor Griffin's clear, accessible scholarship..."elite" journalists acting as flacks for treason are Tories deserving the fate accorded the Tories who fought against the Founding Fathers of America.

Read "The New Pearl Harbor" and reconsider your place in life.

Yonkers, New York
05 February 2008

George W's overarching geopolitical "Freedom Agenda," which Condoleezza Rice implements as "Transformational Diplomacy" was and still is driven by a mindset to CHANGE the world in America's own "democratic" image--by military force if that is what it takes.

It is a policy that not only is a failure, but has brought America grief, hatred and ruin!

So change is not automatically a good thing. It can be good, or it can be bad. But the word, yes, can be tantalizing, especially in these times when there is really an urgent need for America to change--but that change should be from bad to good.

In the international arena, the U.S. needs to be reminded that it is not its business to interfere and meddle in the internal affairs of independent and sovereign states--no matter what its self-serving rational or justification is.

Imperialism has brought down proud and great nations in the past. It eventually proves counter-productive.

In the domestic front, America's leaders need to come together and devote a greater part of their efforts and nation's resources to solving long-festering problems--providing health care for 47 or so million Americans who don't have it; coming to grips with the problem of immigration in a realistic, do-able, responsible and humane manner; stopping the hemorrhaging of American jobs abroad; taking care of those millions of Americans who live below the poverty line, in ways which will lift them out of poverty and enable them to take care of themselves; attending to the serious Federal budget deficits as well as the National Debt; finding ways for America to close its growing trade deficits; and other serious domestic problems.

These are the kinds of change which America needs--and, if achieved, will be change for the better.

MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Obama has the capacity to help us believe it is possible for government to be part of the solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Depends. For most things we don't need the government. But for management of the "commons" Government is essential. We certainly don't need the government to micromanage morality and freedom but we do need it to coordinate infrastructure and technical standards. We should not let our government play geopolitical games abroad and we should only expect absolute transparency in all branches except certain operational defense related stuff. Corporations are not voters and should have less voice than the least of us in government. We should not allow institutions or groups to have more influence than any person. This is ultimately respect for man and the rights of man apart from the tyranny of things we create that we can't control.
Currently our greatest need of government is for sustainable energy policy that is environmentally neutral. We don't need the government to invent solar cells but we do need green lights all the way to get these devices on every roof possible. So this is where overrides to building codes and grid hookup that unnecessarily hinder deployment. Also the government should aggressively subsidize alternate energy as part of our defense budget. The government should ensure that this technology is publicly "owned" or regulated so that it is not promoted by a cartel of companies that would gouge the public interest. The same holds for public health (drug/insurance companies). The basic concept is that there is no difference to the public whether essential goods and services come from a corporation or the government when we have little or no control other than cash or worthless votes.
So if we need a leader or change let it be for the people and our rights.

Finaly a sober voice.So refreshing after all the Obamaniacs. Thank you, Mr. Ignatius.

David,

I don't know about change, but if it's competence we are talking about, the greenback, which is nearing the point where it is good only for the wastepaper basket, speaks volumes about the competence not only of the neocons but also of supposed professionals like Alan Greenspan and the whizkids of Wall Street.

And, believe a VERY WELL-EDUCATED Canadian-trained monetary economist, it is the rest of the world , the poor of Asia, especially the Indians and the Chinese, who are paying for that legendary American competence!

Your conclusion is the right one - we need to make it fashionable to care about good government and good government policies. Reagan manifested the attitude that no good can come from government. He completed a paradigm shift away from seeking or expecting good governmental solutions to problems - a backlash from 60s activism and 70s reforms. I believe this is the point that Obama was trying to make a couple of weeks ago about the Reagan presidency. Obama has the capacity to help us believe it is possible for government to be part of the solution. I wish his policies were bolder on health care and other matters, but I think he has the capacity to attract broad based support for government policies to fix the nation's problems. Sen. Clinton and her husband have too much baggage for that, even if I believed they care enough about the outcome to actually follow through. Based upon the missed opportunities, triangulation, and shenanigans of Bill's eight years, it is hard to trust Hillary.

Sadly, in the context of presidencies since Eisenhower one has to conclude that basic competency represents radical change.

What America needs is a leader to guide people in the right direction, a human who can see and think of people instead of only dollars and businesses. I believe Barak Obama has those qualities. In my country we have an expression: quietly and smoothly and the fry still full,which means that you do not need to be a fighter to achieve the goal, you need to be smart and prudent and reach what you want without quarrels.

The greatest threat to these United States of America is the lack of political courage. The current crop of Presidential prospects still harken to the past: change? Yes change is needed, but change...to what?

The current times demand, of course, innovation, but no Presidential candidate has offered where to go with this. There is a threat we made for ourselves - the idea that people throughout the world can actually aspire to live 'the American Dream.' This has taken hold in places in nearly every corner of the Earth - yet few there, and here, seem to understand the limitations that the Earth can offer. There is a war and it's the human being against Mother Earth, and I fear that we can't win this war.

This is where innovation comes into play, and it's not just technological - it's everything. It's philosophical; it's practical; the monetary value placed on a country should be not what a country can exploit from her natural resources, but how well a country can conserve. And as one can see from the cars offered at the latest shows, the 'big three' (not so big lately) show off their SUV's that are hybrid, but really, are not impressing people. It's just public relations.

Moving to Arizona, or Las Vegas seems to many Americans as a dream, but Mother Earth can't support this, and like the ruins of so many archaeolgical sights that had to be abandoned because of Mother Nature. I fear a place like Phoenix or Las Vegas will too soon be such. Innovation of course can prolong this.

Our new President should embrace innovation of one's mind - specifially, the idea of logic. America has always had places to build, but we're running out of them, and while a new house can be built overlooking a valley in the desert, houses in places like Cleveland are up for sale for $10,000, and no one is buying them because there's no work. This here, is the key for the next President.

The next President, among the many tasks that deal with foreign relation issues and threats to pur country and our allies, should focus on this: The United States must become the beacon for green technology, for green innovation - the green revolution - to make green profitable within our current economic system. The next President must battle the old, entrenched boys, and MAKE them see the future. We don't need to expand to places to where Mother Nature doesn't allow us, we should rebuild everything in the rust belt states, and work towards repopulating them because there sits simply...too much emptyness. But it is also there, where the United States grew up, and in these times, it's paramount to come back home again.

This takes the political courage that no one has shown, save Al Gore, but he won't be our next President.

I disagree that Americans have a 15 second attention span -- we are attentive now, but no one is giving us anything that deserves our attention. But if we take care of our friends and allies across the world, if we can't take care of ourselves.

What is primarily a change in our minds is a economic change by a larger degree than the progress of new prosperity that is blocked by Regime Depreciation . Last month the Islamabad Press spent stageing protests for Press freedoms that David could feel absurd to anyone in this age!
Today we dont need press or freedom because were sitting together . everyone is doing his bisiness.
A President has a larger mind process that is inherited by another.
After succesfull space missions and moon landings many economies headed for Washington from moscow and compiled a /some new political catalogue for public that soon experiened Washington in middle of a unified world and a economic dynamo called 'EU that itself didnt know the importance or full definition of Economics or Capitalism .....
In the course there are winning and losing moments but since it is a Nations urge to progress things improve around us automatically...
What precisely i would call a 'President' is a person who will draw a few trillion USD from state capital and spend/invest around basic structure of lower income groups and improve the 'country' more than the Nation or State.

Gunther ST writes: "Washington is indeed broken, incompetent, divided and corrupt, which allows the corporate-industrial-military complex and irresponsible capitalism to dictate its laws and policies.The question becomes: How do we best change that withouty a benevolent dictatorship ?????"

Gunther, is not what you call the corporate-industrial-military complex already exercising benevolent dictatorship, in this country?

Time to reframe the notion of "dictatorship", taking into account that be it hidden or open, dictatorship is nothing but what it actually is.

"DICTATORSHIP : "... a mode of governing in modern states, ...labels the unrestricted power of ... a group of individuals, who actually monopolizes and exercises all political powers. ... Dictatorship can also refer to a particular mode of exercising power within a community or an ad hoc group of people, which is unrestrained by exterior forces and not dependent on the will formation within the group."

While at it, why not reframe the notion of "imperialism" as well?

Now, "how do we best change that"? Surely not by simply voting (for more of the same?...) every x number of years! More particularly if we are to do so using unreliable machines that leave us with no means to trace everyone's actual vote!

The problem with the lack of statesman-like leadership in Washington DC is that the most suitable people would not be caught dead running in the political rat-races we have going. We have only power hungry political hacks running who want the office not for what they could do for the country but what they feel they can do for themselves and their supporters. They all have some ideology to push, for the sake of getting into office. Some have outlandish beliefs that defy common reason (creationists, believers in cult like religions.....).
The change we need is statesmanship and competence, as well as a willingness to root out incompetence in government jobs. Today, government service at many levels is more highly rewarded than the equivalent in the private sector. Together with "job protection", lack of accountability, and a fat pension at the end, we have a lot of dead wood in government which is not subject to firing for incompetence.
Further, we need to redefine bribery in government (campaign funds)and punish misleading the public with untruths by removal from office.
Competence and accountability, as well as superior management capability and lack of stubborn beliefs in the face of facts that should change a leader's mind is essential.
Experience? Did Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, or Clinton have real experience? Some did in previous government service, but nothing like that required of a President. Any new President must draw on the best brains, probably those who would not subject themselves to the political rat-race, but are very competent thinkers and achievers. Bush did the opposite: a mediocre mind, a non-reader, a hail-fellow-well-met, a stubborn mind that stuck to the wrong paths no matter what, who let himself be run by Cheney and his own extra-executive circle within the government.
Back in the 1940-50 years there was Technocracy, a movement to introduce competence into government to replace personal bias and beliefs. Was that a route to follow?
Washington is indeed broken, incompetent, divided and corrupt, which allows the corporate-industrial-military complex and irresponsible capitalism to dictate its laws and policies.
The question becomes: How do we best change that withouty a benevolent dictatorship ?????

"Our chief want in life is somebody who will make us do what we can." Ralph Waldo Emerson

Agreed!

David. You just said it all! We need a President who will restore government and business to serving the needs of this country and its citizens. That isn't so much change as it is rolling back the clock to the vision of leaders like Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt.

You're excused for focusing on the US because you and I are from the US but you are undercutting the focus of your question which was to have each correspondent be honest about the state of their country and not get into Bush blame and excuses.

As you know I slapped up a snap judgment on how each did.

Now of course competency of the administration is key but that is NOT what gets the ire of most Bush opponents foreign or domestic, it is a specific anti-American agenda activated by a determined if not always effective response to Islamo-terrorism and the continued Russo-Chinese autocratic rise.

But let's not get into that which will take a very competent response by the next president which will not be forthcoming if it is Clinton or Obama listened to Daily Kos or Move On for foreign policy...

Let's talk about Post Global's own competence, and that of Newsweek. Newsweek's Checkpoint Baghdad was always a hodgepodge of biased cynicism which has suffered from the success of the surge and seems to have disappeared, especially the ubercynic Rod Nordlund though his underlings Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry Kaplan seem to blather on.

But Post Global can be accused of sponsoring nonsense. I think this comment under Ali Ettefagh's latest is straight on " Michael O.:
A question to David Ignatius and Fareed Zakaria: As far as I can tell, none of your other panelists is a spokesman for the regime of his country. So why are you using one in Iran? There's plenty of independent-minded, clear-thinking Iranians out there, who actually understand the world they live in. January 30, 2008 5:49 PM"

But I too have posted against your lies that are mostly likely made in the spirit of provocation not prevarication but only show your lack of professionalism.

Lie 1 - 1/25 GPB quotes the OPPOSITION deputy speaker of Czech parliament as making an official statement on what US radar would do when of course it is only an expression of opinion of someone already not enamored of the project!! --- "Czech news agency CTK quoted Zaoralek, senior opposition Social Democrat, as saying" as reported in an of course neutral source - the Chinese govt!!! Pretty LAME I think guys.

Lie 2 - PRAISE the ALMIGHTY, Allah or Lord as you prefer that another Beslan was averted in Bannu Pakistan...BUT again GPB you lie, you prevaricate in the service of propaganda. It may serve the interest of local officials to call the hostage-takers "criminals" only and it may even have saved a siege and the attendant massacre, but it strains credibility that non-affiliated "common criminals" are wandering around Bannu. Bannu province is NEXT to the Waziristans and that is where these "criminals" fled. GPB is not only moral idiots but also bad journalism in practice

But of course my favorite was where you indirectly posted in your "this just in" column the following blog http://joshualandis.com/blog/?p=544 where he talks about a "false story" of Bush going to Syria. PostGlobal never indicates its falsity but proclaims Bush to go to Syria or some such.

What jokesters you are as journalists??!!!!