What is the Difference?

[layoutshooter]

What is the difference between a ruler/dictator and a leader?


A leader encourages, does all he can to extract the BEST from those who he leads. He recognizes that he does NOT have all the answers and listens to others, seeks advice from those who are wiser than he is and revels in the success of others.

A ruler/dictator governs from fear. He belittles the abilities of his charges. He assumes that him and his team are the only ones who can solve other problems for them. He strives to belittle those who succeed and reward those who fail. He seeks not the advice and counsel of those who may be wiser, and seeks only approval for his benevolence.

A LEADER brings out the best in mankind and rejoices when the smallest of those below him excels

A RULER/DICTATOR hopes for failure, and exploits it. The failure of those below the leader insures his power.

 

[Poorboy]

What is the difference between a ruler/dictator and a leader?


A leader encourages, does all he can to extract the BEST from those who he leads. He recognizes that he does NOT have all the answers and listens to others, seeks advice from those who are wiser than he is and revels in the success of others.

A ruler/dictator governs from fear. He belittles the abilities of his charges. He assumes that him and his team are the only ones who can solve other problems for them. He strives to belittle those who succeed and reward those who fail. He seeks not the advice and counsel of those who may be wiser, and seeks only approval for his benevolence.

A LEADER brings out the best in mankind and rejoices when the smallest of those below him excels

A RULER/DICTATOR hopes for failure, and exploits it. The failure of those below the leader insures his power.

And that's what we Have in the Whitehouse----A "Dictator" He is a Piece of Excrement and Should just Leave, Go Back to His Country Kenya where He was Born!! Take His Brood with Him when he does go!!

 

[greg334]

We haven't had a leader in the white house for more than 45 years.

The closest we had was JFK (I hate to say that) and then Truman.

 

[layoutshooter]

What about Dwight D? I kinda thought he was rather steady. He was a thinker. His idea for the Interstate Defense Highway System was a real gem. I my opinion that one project had the same impact on this Nation as the electric light bulb. I thought that he lead, but I was very young and really don't remember him. I get that idea from history.

 

[greg334]

Well no, he wasn't that good and there were some aspects of his administration that led people to think that we did not have a leader. Many of them kept in their mind how he led the country to victory in Europe but for the younger voter, they didn't buy into that idea much.

In fact he led the nation to a deep recession three times with a number of companies closing up and a lot of jobs lost during his administration due to a number of reasons, he gave one as the need to stem the post war inflation. Everyone seems to forget how a lot of the mid-west suffered with shutdowns and layoffs.

The other factor is that he really had a boring administration, marked by a few events (civil rights was under his administration leaped forward and was more important than the highway system and everyone seems to forget that and focus on Rosa Parks with some stupid bus) but it was nothing like Truman or Kennedy who faced Japan and Cuba/Soviet crisis respectively. The highway thing was not about leadership, he set the tone and had the vision but he wasn't alone in either - it was congress and only congress that created it.

And one other thing that pops into my mind is that he golfed less in his first term than Obama has golfed since his arrival at the White House. To be exact I don't think Eisenhower took as many vacations in his two terms as the sitting president has done in his first year in office. If you want to really know how the press treated him, dig up some of the news reports on his golfing all the time instead of working - there is a difference with Obama, they justify his taking time off because the job is so hard - BS.

 

[layoutshooter]

You may be right about Dwight. I have NO use for Truman. His mis-handling of the the Soviet threat led directly to the Soviet take over of eastern Europe and the resulting enslavement of most of that region and the deaths of millions. Kennedy really blew the mess in Cuba. He also underestimated the extent of Soviet expansion in SE Asia. Kennedy talked a good game and had a lot, but not all, of the press in his pocket. He had star power. Much like Obama..

 

[greg334]

Well, let's look at Truman for a moment.

The world was tired of fighting at the time of Soviet expansion and Stalin knew that. He leveraged his ability to show and maintain the fighting force when everyone else was doing the opposite. Even if the Soviets were tired of fighting, they would have gone on and on. Just to provide an insight into why, it was common practice for the soviets to order troops to go into battle with a standing "not one step back" and they reinforced it with a simple and effective method of shooting troops who did take a step back.

His leadership came into being when he had the oppertunity to use a weapon on Japan with some serious thought of how not to use it later on.

JFK inheritied the Eisenhower policy mess on Cuba. Eisenhower came up with the bay of pigs operation and JFK, like others thought it was good to follow his lead.

Because JFK lacked high level experience, he fell apart during the operation and left a lot of men there without support. I think if Eisenhower actually commanded the operation while he was president, it would have succeeded to a point.

See the one thing that was pushing a Cuban government change was the wealthy Cubans who landed here and the people who lost their property after the revolution. They were the ones who gained by any intervention by Eisenhower, and later JFK. It wasn't until May of '61 that Cuba became a socialist country, until then there were a lot of things that pointed toward some sort of open election process and so on.

The other half of this is when the BoPs failed, Kennedy didn't make many freinds in his lack of concern with Cuba and the fight to return the property to the "rightful" owners. Castro limited ownership to less than a 1000 acres and didn't allow foreign ownership of land - it wasn't that he shifted the land to the people, but just took it away and made it state property. JFK insituted the embargo to appease some while at the same time prevented the courts from interveining in the issue of land ownership and compensation. I think, I may be wrong about this but as a former land owner, you could not sue the new Cuban government in our courts until the late 70's.

 

[layoutshooter]

I was not thinking of the Bay of Pigs, I was thinking of the missile crisis. He should have canceled the Bay of Pigs. The missile crisis could have been defused much faster and in a far less dangerous way with a really good back door deplomacy.

Why? Because you are right, the Soviets did NOT want a full scale war. They were tired. Too bad they continued to persue a path to dominate the world. IF they have not acted as they did at the end of WWII things would have been much better for all. They had no choice, after all, they are leftists.