Wanted: weak leadership!

Lamenting a possible Bush victory, an apparently liberal friend (and all this time I thought he was a conservative!) recently consoled himself by stating, “Oh, well, at least America can withstand another weak and ineffectual president.” His premises, of course, being that (1) Bush is a weak leader and (2) a “strong leader” would be much more desirable.

But what exactly does he mean by “strong leadership”? What does he mean by a “strong leader”? And why would a strong leader naturally be highly desirable?

I beg to differ. I say weak leadership should be more preferred. In fact, if I were running for a seat in the Saipan Senate (say, against my Uncle, Senator Pete P. Reyes, a strong leader), I would be promising the people weak and slow leadership–and let me tell you why.

Strong leadership implies centralized control. It implies big government. It implies unwarranted intrusions into our daily–and financial–lives. When you get right down to it, really strong leadership implies totalitarianism and dictatorship. After all, Hitler was certainly a very strong leader–as were Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin.

Make no mistake, strong leadership can be very dangerous. Freedom-loving individuals–people who cherish their natural individual rights–are extremely wary of strong leadership. And very rightly so!

Weak, ineffectual leadership is often good, sound leadership. Weak governmental leadership–except in cases of military defense against external aggression and sensible law enforcement against criminals–means more individual liberty.

Those who accept the premise of limited government must also accept the corollary premise of “limited leadership.” A limited government naturally entails limited governmental leadership.

U.S. Conservatives cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they accept the fundamental American principle of “limited government,” then they would be absolutely hypocritical in calling for strong leadership except in limited cases of national self-defense.

After all, if America’s founding fathers really wanted strong national leadership, if they really wanted America to be governed by a strong national leader, they would have written an entirely different U.S. Constitution. They would not have provided for the checks and balances found in the three branches of the Federal Government: executive, legislative, and judicial. They would not have included the 9th and 10th Amendments in the US Bill of Rights (e.g., “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”)–both of which have been wrongly usurped by strong leadership.

Thus, let us have more freedom through weak leadership. Weak leadership can be a wonderful thing indeed–to all but those who are hopelessly incapable of directing themselves and who desperately need others to tell them what to do with their own lives.

Vote for weak leadership!
br

Strictly a personal view. Charles Reyes Jr. is a regular columnist of Saipan Tribune. Mr. Reyes may be reached at charlesraves@hotmail.com