DIPLOMACY DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION

DIPLOMACY DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Rationalism

Parents have been taught by modern child rearing experts to be friends with their children. Being the BFF is now a virtue for parenting. But when a child sees the parent as a friend, the parent has forfeited his natural authority. The equality of parents and children has created a barrier for parents to instill discipline and moral values. The use of authority as the parental leader of the family has practically vanished.

Leaders cannot be friends or “lead from behind.” It does not produce leadership and besides is an oxymoron. A leader has to be in front physically or mentally to be considered as leading. People who have chosen to be in a position of power have to say and do things not everyone in the group agrees with or likes. The objective of the leader is to meet the goals of his position not to be voted the nicest boss. Instead the leader’s job is to get everyone to work together to accomplish the mission not to win a popularity contest.

A leader has to show his underlings a track record of improvement and success. Promoting, demoting, rewarding, encouraging and firing individuals for the betterment of the enterprise are some of the functions of a leader. The personality of the boss determines the style of leadership, although all leaders should have more power than their subordinates regardless of the approach. Some people in authority might use psychological reinforcement, intellectual persuasion, fear, role modeling or a mixture of all of these to reach their vision.

Regardless of the approach leaders use to gain respect, at times they should be feared. They may directly confront or subtly point out a poor decision to convey a criticism. Sometimes a stern reprimand, a put down or a sarcastic comment could be given when someone is not doing his fair share by being careless, obstinate or disregarding his specific responsibilities. It is the force of their personality and their actions that motivate their people to put forth their best effort.

The concept that we always have to be friendly, polite and diplomatic in dealing with others is absurd. In certain periods particular approaches are looked upon with more favor than others. All leadership styles at one time or another have been successful in reaching fellow worker’s needs. Being overly cautious and attempting not to hurt a person’s feelings may buy loyalty but seldom add productivity.

Making a ridiculous statement such as a leader is too direct, offensive or critical to be an effective leader should be an insult to any critically thinking person. In the long run an individual should be judged on the results of his actions, not just his diplomacy. Using a soft manner often gives a confusing message. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.

Winston Churchill is considered by most experts to be a great WWII leader. He did not mince words, and displayed great courage in front of his enemies. Regardless of his direct reality assessment, his statements resonated with the British citizenry. Additionally he was noted to praise the perseverance of the Britons in their darkest hour. He was a man of action.

On the other hand, British Chancellor, Nevil Chamberlain, was a refined, consummate negotiator who was very courteous and solicitous to Adolf Hitler. Hitler signed treaties that he had no intention of following. Chamberlain’s apparent weakness as the leader of England was fully exploited by Germany. He was a man of pleasantries and words that turned out to be worthless and dangerous to the survival of the nation.

In times of crisis the stick (action) is more effective and appropriate than the carrot, playing nicey, nicey. If you stare eye to eye with intensity at someone who is attempting to intimidate you, it conveys, “stop or I will hurt you.” The instigator backs off his threats, which is a more successful method in the situation than sweet talk that ends in submission.

Diplomacy has a place but so does confrontation. After displaying strength, a softer manner can be used to establish a more meaningful relationship. Once leaders demonstrate they can handle adversity with strength of character, their status as a leader increases in the eyes of others. Being a straight, tough talker and acting reasonably when someone else is doing the same can get amazingly beneficial results.

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. Dr. Maglio is an author of weekly newspaper articles, INVASION WITHIN  and a new just published book, entitled, IN CHARGE PARENTING In a PC World. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.

THERE ARE VERY FEW LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

THERE ARE VERY FEW LIBERAL DEMOCRATS     

By Domenick J. Maglio Ph.D. Traditional Realist

Our founding fathers were believers in classical liberalism that took place around the enlightenment period. Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbs, and John Locke greatly influenced the leaders of the American Revolution. Adam Smith’s ideas became the basis of our capitalist economy. Limited government, the right to liberty and property, rule of law, individual civil freedoms such as the right to freedom of speech, religion and assembly and the right of citizens to bear arms against an oppressive government were inspired by these philosophers. 

Both evolving early American political groups had a common allegiance to the philosophy of classic liberalism. Jefferson advocated a weak central government along with much of the power remaining with local states. The John Adams/ Alexander Hamilton coalition pushed for a strong central government and limited state powers. They argued fiercely with each other although both sides could compromise on how to implement the policies as each group believed in liberal principles.

In the beginning of the 20^th century, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson announced they were progressive politicians. This meant their main objective was to reform society and to advance progress for mankind. They attempted to do this by government intervention using a top down approach. The focus shifted from keeping America a free, prosperous country to reforming the world. Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations was to create peace and progress for all mankind.

In the early 21^st century Hillary Clinton started to refer to herself as a “progressive.”

Many other democrat joined the bandwagon. The democrats rebranded themselves “progressive” from the label, “liberals,” which had taken on a negative connotation. “Progressive” is a more accurate description of the party at this time. Establishment politicians of both parties are intellectual elites who believe in bypassing the voice of the people to implement their objectives. These past champions of individual liberties transformed their priorities into socialistic, communist ones. They trumpet utopian, egalitarian ideas of social justice by cultural/social engineering. “Free everything” included money to every citizen, open borders and self-destructive apology tour foreign policy. Some of these progressives, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez, have had the courage to openly advocate failed over-the-top socialistic concepts.

Democrat “gradual-change strategy” toward a statist government clearly ended with Obama. There was nothing incremental about the policies he enacted. He led by presidential fiat through executive orders. The Obama administration bypassed the other two branches of government. The progressive reforms came fast and furiously without the consent of congress. The EPA, IRS, Justice Department, CIA, FBI, and ICE wrote internal regulations that rapidly altered the way the USA operated. The changes were only a temporary mirage that were unraveled as quickly as they were implemented.

America was being transformed into a statist, centrally controlled economy. They promoted an upside-down culture by such means as multi-culturalism, non judgmentalism, identity politics, hate crimes, political correctness and offensively interfering with all debate. These changes were not done transparently but clandestinely.

Currently after the shock of President Trump winning the election the political elites in both parties and the embedded unelected bureaucratic chiefs have openly attempted to impeach the president. Anything and everything the president has done has been criticized from every conceivable angle.  An alliance of progressive politicians with the media sources justify and rationalize these attacks.

The progressives’ silence and tacit support of mob violence with destruction of property is reminiscent of dictatorial takeovers. There is maybe an ounce of liberalism left in the progressive democrat party. This is the reason law and order is not maintained but undermined.

The reason progressive democrats can ignore or support Antifa, Black Lives Matter, anti-free speech university students, and other social change organizations who use tactics of rioting, beating opponents, preventing debates, targeting people in their private time, censoring free speech through hate speech is that are not followers of liberalism. These radical groups members believe social ends justify the means. Many progressive politicians have adopted the “Rules for Radicals”.

The progressives are a far cry from democrat Daniel Moynihan, Scoop Jackson, JFK and Harry Truman who fought and understood the inherent evil of socialism/ communism. The current and past standard excuses of why there has never been a positive statist society is always the same. The advocates say that none of these regimes had the right leader for it to work not that the utopian ideas are unworkable. This leads to populist frustration and then repression.

The progressive democrat party has demonstrated, by their unwillingness to accept and support a duly elected President of the United States, that they do not believe in the power of the people. The democrat party should not ever be called “liberal” as they are now committed to “the ends justify the means” not a constitutional republic of the people and for the people.

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. Dr. Maglio is an author of weekly newspaper articles, INVASION WITHIN and a new just published book, entitled, IN CHARGE PARENTING In a PC World. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.

ACCEPTING GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS ERODES DIGNITY

ACCEPTING GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS ERODES DIGNITY

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

Government assistance was a stigma for the poor in the past. People would go hungry rather than ask for help. Many immigrants in the early 1900s were against receiving any government assistance since it made them appear inferior to other citizens. Most wanted to prove their worth and prosper on their own. Their dignity was more important than receiving charity from other people or tax money.  They appreciated the economic opportunity of being a free American and did not want to remain on the bottom rung of the economy.

Today too many citizens have bought the false idea that government is god-like entity that bestowed gifts on his followers. These people believed that they are entitled to these nanny state presents. They have no awareness or concern that there are negative attitude changes in the recipients that weakens their strength of character.

Once people get “something for nothing” by their parents, state or federal government they expect more things and appreciate them less. Anyone who gets sucked into being a parasite rather than a producer is going down a dangerous road. These takers become addicted to searching out any angle to get government handouts and lose their shame in playing the game of beating the system rather than maintaining their pride in order to continue a self reliant life style.

Just like the free Obama phones whetted the appetite for more freebees or other giveaway programs, these programs have escalated from food stamps (now SNAP, Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program), free gasoline, travel vouchers, free insurance, and rent assistance for people who meet the lenient criteria. As the program grows, the benefits decrease but the person is already trapped in the welfare safety net. As the system becomes top heavy with too many participants it becomes harder for government to justify robbing the taxpayers to finance these ever increasing programs. Those out-of-control welfare programs result in federal bailouts or government bankruptcy.

Buying votes through government handouts increases the tendency for people to become more reliant on government. They tend to be less willing to work for what they want.  Increasing dependency on the government automatically encourages growth of government and a significant decrease in the work ethic. As they become more entitled, people begin to take whatever they can get even if it means deception in order to qualify before others who really need it.

Individual dignity in obtaining something for nothing is sacrificed. These citizens know they are using others hard earned assets to take care of their selfish wants. This behavior destroys a sense of self worth, while their addiction to government to provide their needs strengthens. The concern for being embarrassed by this despicable behavior vanishes as their appetite for government assistance becomes insatiable.

As government creeps into every aspect of a person’s life there is a corresponding loss of freedom. These welfare traps besides extinguishing freedom and self-initiative, divide the nation into productive and non-productive citizens. As the productive citizens realize the welfare parasites are granted their tax money that approaches or even surpasses their hard earned income. At this juncture they have a decision to make: join the give-away-club or continue to work with more income taken out of their pay for taxes. It becomes very attractive to enlist participants in this giveaway debacle creating a disincentive to work for citizens who never before considered taking any welfare.

Once you are seduced into a part of the government system, it is similar to stepping into quick sand. The rulers need to maintain their “gift giving” to prevent the dissolution of the nanny state and thus become even more intrusive into a person’s life. Government agencies begin to require visits, more documentation, more testing for drugs or whatever they decide they need to justify their government gifts to the taxpayers. The strings attached do not decrease but only increase by the growing bureaucratic pressure to rationalize their program’s existence.

The increase in requirements to keep the welfare means a loss of freedom, and self-respect. This results in dissatisfied and angry recipients.  Not only do the welfare system participant feel cheated and eventually a victim of the giveaway program. This fosters divisiveness in the ranks of the takers who organize and rebel for greater benefits.

Hopefully a leader, a president and his congressional supporters arise who have sufficient courage to reverse the federal and state giveaway programs. This will send the message that the true economic advancements in the United States happen through climbing the opportunity ladder of employment. Starting a business or obtaining a better job situation is the best way to reach greater freedom and prosperity.

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. Dr. Maglio is an author of weekly newspaper articles, INVASION WITHIN  and a new just published book, entitled, IN CHARGE PARENTING In a PC World. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.