http://www.yeswecansong.com

I’m with you in that, Obama’s greatest asset might be his ability change how we are viewed abroad. The hate and damage done has been incredible and I don’t see anyone more qualified than him to undo at least part of this damage. For that alone it is worth voting him in.

Now I am much more skeptical domestically as he is still beholden to many of the interests that fund him and other Dems. And while his deliberate avoidance of all issues perceived as “racial” could be maddening (i.e. nothing really to say about Jena 6), I do understand that the man is trying to get himself elected and what that probably entails. I could only hope that he is much more deliberate in combatting institutional racism if elected. I don’t know.

However, the encouraging thing is that he is bringing in thousands of new voters into the political process and that is a huge factor unto itself.

I didn’t think this a few months ago, but I think Barak has the capability of being truly transformative. I realize his political aspirations completely negate my previous commentary regarding selflessness and staying out of the Political arena so everything I say about him must be taken with a grain of salt. I do think that the checks and balances inherent in the US style Democracy prevent serial mismanagement of the Economy. (although GWB has done his best to debunk this)

Anyway. Because of his morality, a Barak Presidency would change the lens through which the rest of the world views America. Now whether the political establishment (that he would command) could take advantage of this opportunity, I don’t know? Hopefully he would not prove to be driven by ego like every other politician.

Sadly, the World stage seems to be completely devoid of that Truly Inspirational Leader.

Unless you count Tupac.

(btw this is a blog, and sometimes I type quickly and do not proofread, but I think MODI recognized correctly that I meant to label LeBatard is insightful, thx for the correction)

Now, while I do admire many of Africa’s post colonial leaders: Nyerere, in Tanzania, Selassi in Ethiopia, Nkrumah in Ghana, to be specific. They were all inspirational people, and for the most part had good intentions. Unfortunately they were horrible managers of their respective economies, which they each left in tatters.

Steady,

I understand that you may have had a personal relationship with the man, and Nyerere did help to bring his people out of illiteracy, get drinking water, etc. The reality is that the bulk of this was a result of the more than $3 billion of foreign aid that poured into Tanzania during the early 70’s. (granted, Nyerere did not steal the money as did most of his peers, but not stealing foreign aid certainly doesn’t qualify as economic leadership)

Since we have the luxury of hindsight, it is pretty clear that Nyerere’s ideological zeal to create a socialist state, his “Arusha Declaration” resulted in

- mass nationalizations of previously efficiently run enterprises that were subsequently run into the ground,
- forced resettlement of some 11 million people into ujamaa villages (yes, I said FORCED)
- the detention of his political critics using “Tanzania’s Preventive Detention Act”
- a defacto one party state in which the Press was muzzled

Furthermore, the reason he died a pauper is that his experiment in socialism ground the country’s economy to a halt and severely de-valued its currency until it was virtually worthless.

By the way, I do agree, The Nyerere Foundation was fantastic at getting foreign aid. Unfortunately Tanzania needed a leader who could develop and maintain a vibrant economy, not one who could translate Shakespearean plays into Swahili and get grants from USAID.

Steady,

What Peace are you referring to? Haven’t you seen what has happened post Nyerere, Nkrumah, and Selassi on the African continent. Yes, it may have been cool during the 70’s to get high, and to dream about how great Socialism might be. The reality is, however, that millions of Africans suffered because of the inept leadership that was the lot of each and every country on the continent, post colonialism.

What separates Ghandi, Mandela and King from the people on your list, is that they were content to provide inspirational and moral leadership. As such, they were able to serve as a moral compass for their respective Political Leaders. This allowed competent Political Leaders to subsequently come forward and be elected in their respective countries. Because Ghandi, Mandela and King all understood that they could do the most for their people by staying out of the Political Process.

Ok. I am done!

Steady, I can certainly learn more from these exchanges which is why they are valuable. Your exchanges are always appreciated and educational for me — as is this one. …ultimately, temple is right about “rankings”. They can be arrogant, uninformed and reckless (guilty!), however, have a small redeeming quality of stimulating an important discussions that might not happen otherwise.
—————

I also have a general rule for grading sportswriters. I go out of my way not to judge them on their worst day, worst column, or worst sentence. (Otherwise I would not like everybody — including myself) When reviewing DLB’s large body of work I believe that he is a credit to the profession.

He is one of the very few non-black sportswriters (note: DLB is Cuban) who writes with any sense of social consciousness whatsoever. But even when he is not writing about social affairs, he brings up many great points missed by other sportswriters. He definitely dumbs himself down for PTI and radio (which might be a prerequisite). Having reviewed much of his work, I would say that it is his bi-weekly columns in ESPN the mag where he is clearly at his best. Usually one “food for thought” topic that is well thought out and contrarian to popular belief.

From your comment:
[While leaders like Haile Selassi, and Mwalimu Julius Nyerere were inspirational in post colonial Africa their legacies are frought with self serving, self dealing and their gross mismanagement lead to the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of their own citizens.]

To which “leaders like them” do you refer OOO? Who was a leader, like Mwalimu Nyerere, that healed a nation of some 175 ethnic groups and languages into one of national pride unified by Swahili? Jomo Kenyata–sure not holding up today. Milosovich? King Leopold of Belgium with the Wallons, Francais et Flamands? You can’t seriously tell me that Nyerere ran off with money. I was with the man three months before his death. He died almost a pauper with one small house in his home village. Up until the end he worled to heal the Hutu-Tutsi ethnic divide in Burundi. His Nyerere Foundation was getting grants from USAID to broker a peace plan in the region. I know OOO, because I was there.
Dan LeBatard can only do a bit of research before coming out with these GOAT proclamations. That is so American for him or any of his apologists to suggest there is great insight in such acts or what he wrote (& was reposted) here.

To your next comment:

[One always has to be careful to separate Political Leadership (which have roots in Power and Egoism) with just plain Leadership (which have roots in Sacrifice, Healing and Bringing people together)]

Even you pulled out Mandella from the list of other leaders that rival the historical net effect of Dr. King, Jr. What about King’s manly shortcomings? We never heard about Ghandi’s or Mandella’s (though they must certainly exist because they were hu/men). Do those weaknesses get factored into this GOAT equation? I read Stogdill, Bennis, Etzioni, Tsu, Machiavelli, Green and so many others on leadership. I would need to read more OOO before I digest what is posted here. I can also pull out Selassi and even Nkrumah as being leaders who were on a completely different sphere/planet/context when they displayed their art of leadership. They were leaders on a whole nother level. How they ruled and how their country turned out after their demise should be viewed through geopolitical lenses as opposed to sportswriters’ GOAT quick top 10 list or famous for what he meant to me. Clearly there is much more that can be said here or much more that I can learn in this exchange. Even myself, I have callously suspended my subscription to the axiom: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, then to speak inciteful bunk and remove all doubt.” As consolation, you may have the last word OOO.

I think some of our disconnect is around language as I am using (and perhaps misusing) the term “social justice” to include the security crisis AND economic and political justice under a broader umbrella of equality. …The problem with MLK’s legacy in my mind is only that it has distorted. The CRM was merely one step in a process that included economic and political equality.

Yes, this discussion is in “the eye of the beholder”. Amongst other thing history is kindest to those that can point to tangible results that can also be pointed to like the south’s desegregation and the 1964 CRA. usually, when the leader discussions comes up, the tangible progress tend to get the most attention. That is why a strong argument can easily be made for Freddrick Douglass as America’s greatest leader. Also, to me moral consistency is also important whether it be King opposing the Vietnam war or Douglass being one of the foremosts champions for women’s rights and suffrage.