Being a national leader: the art of deception and power

In a separate blog, I confessed that my international leadership lacked the brash application of power that some of my predecessors used ─ like Truman, JFK, Reagan and others. 

However, as a national leader, my role is far more aggressive and manipulative.  Let me explain the why and wherefore of this difference in leadership.

Simply stated, it's the progressive needle ─ what we need to inject into America to make it fair and equal. You know all the slogan-think of progressivism ─ Bernie Sanders hits all the right notes:
• income inequality is the great moral issue of our time 
• fight for a living wage 
• government healthcare for all
• rich must pay fair taxes
• free college for all 
• change to alternative energy from carbon-based energy

But what are the ways to get all these things? 
Here's where deception, manipulation and raw power play an important part of making a progressive society.

Let's consider the IRS hit list of conservative non-profit organizations. It was inspirational. Lois Lerner did admirable work at the IRS before she was forced to resign.

She read my mind and ran with it. She targeted conservative advocacy groups after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and then stonewalled Congress.

I told FOX that they’ll never find a smidgen of evidence – ha, her computer crashed and the emails vanished. Amazing woman. Got a good pension too. If they ever come after her, I’ll give her a pardon.

 

Then there was the Department of Justice stonewalling and lying to Judge Andrew Hanen, Southern District of Texas, about whether the administration was processing illegal aliens into the U.S. Of course, we were lying. All the court did was demand ethics training. A small price to pay. 

 

One of the better lies was having my deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, lie to Congress about the Iran nuclear deal.  Ha, we pulled a fast one on Congress on that. 

 

Of course, passing the Affordable Care Act was a masterful exercise in lying to the public and then getting the legislation passed without a single vote from the opposing party ─ a first in American history.  

 

I could go on about how I mastered deception, manipulation and used power and I expect that Hillary Clinton will follow my example in applying the progressive needle to the American body politic.

Being an international leader: surrendering as a step towards peace

Some might say that my model of leadership is flawed. Not that I’m not good at manipulating the media, the public and even friends. But some, like Dr. Cornell West, think that I lack a backbone. 

There may be some truth to this perception in my role as an international leader.  But this needs some explanation since this is counterintuitive.



I am able, in a limited way, to mirror Machiavelli’s and Sun Tzu's Art of War. I've used drones to kill lots of scoundrels, but I haven't backed up my drawing a red line against Syria's Assad using chemical weapons on his own population, or opposing Russia's invasion of Crimea, or only putting in a minimal number of ground troops to defeat ISIL, and the like.

I'm even giving up control of the internet and allowing in authoritarian governments to share control of the web – even if they plan on abusing their own people.

But there's a reason for my tepid approach to imposing American standards of behavior on other countries and other cultures. 

Machiavelli and Sun Tzu lived at a less complicated time – less technology of war, no nuclear weapons, no internet, no mass transportation, no problem with human caused global warming. 

Here's the way I came to my way of seeing my role of international leadership:  It is important to give in and surrender in order to get peace. Surrendering is a way to inner peace; and it ultimately is the same way towards peace with others. It may only be a baby step towards peace, but that is far better than puffing up and beating my chest in an attempt to stare down warmongers.

To reiterate, I never wanted to be a war president. I’d rather lead from behind that confront someone like Putin. I have no problem confronting a Republican or someone from FOX news, but not someone who might make me use more than a drone or two.

Is this a terrible admission? 

I don’t think so and here’s why. The U.S. can afford to lose some international power. The next president can make up for that. 

My approach to national leadership is, of course, is very different.