Amber and I had a great debate the other night in bed.
It was wether or not Apple could succeed immediantly after the leaving of Mr. Steve Jobs (if he leaves). Amber was taking the position that Apple would stay the same great Apple and continue to innovate. I was on the other side, arguing that without Jobs, Apple would hold the status quo for awhile, but would fail to be truly innovative until someone else stepped up and made Apple theirs. It’s all about people who care enough to be the leader, not the person given the job.
So in the context of being president, I would argue that the people who have the drive and motivation to get elected to office are not the people who care about the country and it’s people. It’s the people who care about being elected president. Now to be honest, it can be very hard to tell the difference… And so far, I haven’t see Obama showing any *strong* signs of playing the game to get re-elected.. But time will tell. There is always the chance that someone might care enough about both roles (being elected and the country) that it all works out.
But see thats the thing about leadership.
Leaders step up to lead because they care about leading. Not because a group thought they would be good at it. Steve wasn’t elected, he decided to lead his company. Nobody made me the leader of JR, I decided to. It’s not a democracy when there’s a leader involved. The leader can seek advice. The leader can question what is right and wrong. But the leader is the leader… Which is why it’s so dang curious this democracy thing works at all… Because the person who leads has to be someone the people feel cares about them and the country… NOT someone who cares about getting elected.