I have a friend who once said that any man who handles his conflicts in public is essentially no man at all. I’m paraphrasing of course but I guess the point of his comment was that there are two types of men: the strong and tactful type and (to use a more pedestrian term) the bitch. To most, the latter of these is often associated with femininity although many men have presented paradoxical examples of strength through acts that exemplify manhood. For example, a man who attends a tea party whose guest list includes Barbie, Dora the Explorer and his five year old daughter would definitely not be considered a bitch despite the fact that the act itself is uncommon among many males. My friend was referring of course to the ilk that often resort to beating their chests over petty matters such as cash, women to whom they are not committed or other trifles. It must be the stress of the current economy that has increased my encounters with such individuals lately. I suppose there are many who could be blamed for their resurgence but at this moment one man comes to mind: George W. Bush.
It doesn’t take a historian to know that our former president had some deep seeded bitch issues which originated with his daddy George Sr. and later manifested in his foreign policy. Many would agree that the problem is that Mr. Bush possessed an ill defined concept of diplomacy. When I think of past leaders of the free world in general I assume that their Ivy League training which echoed the voices of Machiavelli, and Richard III, was often dinner conversation. The subjects of these conversations made an art out of avoiding “bitchdom”in this sense. They all shared a similar philosophy when it came to leadership which was to be angels in public and demons in private when it came to both national and their own security as leaders. One thing that many leaders of old shared in common was that the use of force (at least in public) was not always necessary. Was Mr. Bitch…excuse me Bush paying attention? If he was, how would the Iraq/Afghanistan situations look today?
Enter: Barack Obama. Many would agree that he was elected because people want change in this country. There are also those who want to go back to the good old days when America was “the greatest country in the world”; when diplomacy was king and foreign annoyances like Osama Bin Laden could be taken care of efficiently by the time the Knicks game was on and dinner was being served. Could Obama with his slick intellectual swagger be the guy to restore this sense of security? Although this remains to be seen, I’m pretty sure that he at least knows who Machiavelli was. Although the term Machiavellian in modern society is a pejorative term, it is no secret that he was if nothing else a realist about the inner workings of modern day government and politics. So it is understandable if our current president avoids this association. I wonder if he at least saw the classic blaxploitation movie “The Mack”(check youtube if you are unfamiliar) in which the main character Goldie in my opinion exhibited diplomacy 101 when he told Pretty Tony ... ‘we can settle this like you got some class or we can get into some gangsta sh*t’. This scene despite its ‘pimped out’ theme suggested that it is important to be a gentlemen and a scholar even in times of conflict. With this in mind, Barack Obama does not seem like the ‘bitch type’ at all which is a plus. With all of the factors which could cripple this country at stake I wonder: Is it possible that we have a “Mack” in office? Only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment