Sarah Palin's Polarizing Leadership Quality

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

•  
  1

  davros303

  07/28/09 | Report as spam

  RE: Sarah Palin's Polarizing Leadership Quality

  The polarisation caused by Palin's presence on the political stage has absolutely nothing to do with leadership, and has everything to do with her role on the "stage". She was placed in the public arena to polarise - that's it. She is not qualified, competent, or even educated to lead politically. That is not up for debate it's fact - which is why it is so infuriating for people that she's even in the political area and why she polarises. Debating it is like arguing why the sky is blue and how controversial it is that it isn't yellow. Pointless.
  
  So why was she placed there to polarise? What purpose does polarisation serve? It stimulates response - it drives people to react and ultimately take action. And it was fabulously successful. You had some of the most high profile entertainment personalities running TV campaigns begging Americans to vote, to take a stand AGAINST Palin & McCain. When has that happened in modern history?
  
  So how does the Republican party possibly benefit from a Democrat being in office? Well the party itself doesn't benefit, but party members do. Specifically, take a look at Obama's actions now he's been in office for a little while.
  
  Trillions of dollars handed out to corporate entities (banks), of which a multitude of senior Republicans (and Democrats) are former executives or board members. Now if a Republican president had done this, especially one cut from the same timber as Bush (which was precisely how McCain was positioned), it would have been viewed for what it was - corporate America feathering it's own nest. As a result, opposition would have been far stronger and there may have been a very real possibility of the "bailout" falling over.
  
  Ahhhhh - but what if a Democrat took this action? What if a Democrat who stood for "change" did that? What if a Democrat who everyone fundamentally trusted did that? A Democrat who stood for everything that Bush / Palin / McCain wasn't? (insert polarisation here). Well then - it must really be the right thing to do, not just political spin. We better support this idea, no matter how completely insane it appears to be. And it was.
  
  Because what we've witnessed is the most blatant corrupt swindle of public money in modern history. And not behind closed doors, right in front of us - by a seemingly political white knight. Enter Obama. Appearing to say all the right things, and with charisma, in the face of an opponent who is blatantly incompetent (Palin) and clearly unfit for any office, let alone the presidency. This was a beautifully engineered stage play - posing as a democratic election, and Palin played her role.
  
  You want a corporate analogy to this rant? Take the consumer goods market. The real market leaders control the positioning of each of their "players" competing in the market by controlling the competing brands. Nestle has multiple products competing in the chocolate snackfood space - some cheap, some more expensive, some with crunchy bits - bottom line it's all chocolate. But by owning and controlling competing products, they are much better positioned commercially to control a greater overall market share. The average consumer (or in the above example, the voter), does not make the connection. To them, they still believe they have a choice. Kit Kat or Aero bar. Ooooo - they're both so different! But they're not, they're both chocolate - manufactured by exactly the same company, who pockets a profit no matter which product you choose. Nestle have just created the perception of choice using a little cosmetics and marketing. The key difference between this example and the 2 party system that exists in America (and most countries around the world now), is that the choice is between just 2 products and 2 products only - in this case, Republican or Democrat. However the perception (illusion is a better word), is that there is still a choice.
  
  You want a leadership lesson in the most advanced marketing tactics being used in the modern world - that's it.

•  
  2

  manifestyourdestiny

  07/29/09 | Report as spam

  RE: Sarah Palin's Polarizing Leadership Quality

  Let me first say that I'm no Sarah Palin fan. To me, her selection as McCain's running mate was a sign that McCain (whom I previously respected as a moderate Republican willing to stand behind his principles even when it meant going against the party line) had become the kind of politician I abhor. He chose her, possibly impulsively and certainly without proper vetting, because he misguidedly believed the image of a (relatively) young, attractive, outspoken, female with a "maverick" reputation could help him win the election - not because she was in any way equipped to do the job, should they actually win that election.
  
  Nevertheless, the question intrigues me. And I do believe there is a specific element of her "polarizing leadership style," if you can call it that, that translates well to the corporate world: the ability to unite a group of individuals (employees) in a fight against an external enemy (competition). Too often, corporations become mired in internal politics and conflicts between their own silos, and take their eye off the customer and the competition. Directed at a competitor, Palin's passionate vitriol could have the potential to mobilize a like-minded employee base and do some damage.

•  
  3

  reesie1960

  07/29/09 | Report as spam

  RE: Sarah Palin's Polarizing Leadership Quality

  davros303
  I think you completely miss the point. The voters recognized that the 2 parties aren't any different anymore, and that they offered no real choices. Palin was seen as an outsider, one who wasn't "sold out" to big business or corrupt politics, AND still loves America; not just another piece of chocolate from the same company.
  As for being qualified..she is just as qualified as Barack. She was governor for 2 years, which certainly as good as being a senator for 2 years. I think we have seen what the elitists from Ivy league colleges have done for our country. I don't think she could do any worse!!!
  
  
  

•  
  4

  reesie1960

  07/29/09 | Report as spam

  RE: Sarah Palin's Polarizing Leadership Quality

  "Vitriol"- Bitterly abusive feeling or expression.
  I don't see where her speeches could be considered as such.
  She spoke her mind honestly. That is not "vitriol."

•  
  5

  recjr

  07/29/09 | Report as spam

  RE: Sarah Palin's Polarizing Leadership Quality

  To Davros303, for the most part we are a still a two-party system; thus, there is going to be a certain amount of polarization mostly down party lines. Sarah Palin isn't a polarizing figure by nature. One could argue that the far left liberal wing saw her (rightfully so) as a threat to their claim to the presidency. And so it goes; they continue to trash her, and will so, to ensure that she gets nowhere near a run for the presidency. What the liberal party should worry most about is their swift movement to the far left and the move towards socialism which most Americans absolutely, as you put it, abhor.
  
  As far as Obama is concerned, he is no more educated or competent to lead this country. Sure, he is charismatic and a great orator but he mistakes these traits for diplomacy. The ability to deliver a great speech (with teleprompters no less) doesn't make anyone a great leader; certainly not fit for the presidency. Thus, his decision while campaigning to avoid those "townhall" meetings with Senator McCain because it would, among other things, expose his weakness as a candidate.
  
  Your consumer products analogy is somewhat flawed. If I like a particular product because of its inherent characteristics or features, I am inclined to continue purchasing that product. If I am just concerned about cost then I might put up with an inferior product to save a few bucks. Procter & Gamble owns several brands of laundry detergent knowing that people like choices. This is just good marketing and brand management. If P&G didn't offer competing brands then someone else would. In the end, it might mean that a decline in market share. In theory, it means that competing companies must produce a better product to win. Consumers choose a particular product for a myriad or reasons; not the least of which is that they trust the company producing the product, or, the company they choose to patronize is a "green" company or they donate to worthy causes. On the other hand, some consumers might not like these companies because they do those things and they feel it is a waste or adds to the cost of doing business, and inflating prices. The point is, we still live in a free-market captitalistic society where everyone has an opportunity to become the best they can be depending upon how bad they want it.
  
  For someone such as yourself, I think you would be glad to know that the government has acted to protect restraint from trade through, "The Sherman Act," and later, "The Clayton Anti-Trust Act," and then lastly, "The Robinson-Patman."
  
  Lastly, Ghiradelli might argue with you that it is all "just chocolate."