Dictatorship is LEADERSHIP?

Published on May 8, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

RE: The recently overturned vaccination edict of Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Governor Perry unilaterally issued an "executive order" mandating the HPV vaccine to be administered to all girls going into their sixth grade year. The vaccine, for those living in a cave, is supposed to prevent SOME types of HPV that have been shown to cause cervical cancer.

Governor Perry recently won a hotly contested re-election bid. One of his biggest contributors? Merck, the manufacturer of this vaccine.

In my applause for the legislature's decision, which cleared with a veto proof majority, I was chastised because of what one reader called Governor Perry's "Leadership".

Since when did dictatorship equal leadership? Allegedly, we are a democratically based government, and dictatorship was, in fact, the very government form our founding fathers wanted to avoid. Why? Because one person cannot possibly speak for millions as Governor Perry has done.

The ironic thing is this individual has blogged against laws banning certain foods. Well if one government official can decide what is best for you, why can't a legislature? And WAY more people die from obesity than die from cervical cancer. So using this logic, our governors should show "leadership", declare a state of emergency and ban all fast foods. Makes sense, right?

I have a feeling that had Governor Perry sent the proposal for adding Gardasil to the list of shots before the legislature, he might have gotten some support. Possibly even mine. Because I know that, despite what they tell you, moral and religious exceptions to vaccinations ARE allowed. And that ultimately the only people "forced" to have their kids vaccinated are parents who refuse to make a choice. But what Governor Perry did, and the way he did it, left a sour taste in the mouths of many Texans, myself especially and included. There are too many valid questions about the product, questions that proponents REFUSE to answer, calling our compassion into question for even ASKING those questions.

What Governor Perry did in Texas was not leadership, it was dictatorship. And it does not have any place in a Democracy. Maybe the legislature's action (brought about by a legislature in which HIS party holds the majority) will convince Governor Perry that he should work WITH our legislators, not around them.

Comments (Page 1)

terpfan1980

on May 08, 2007

Sorry, I've already covered the reasons why this was leadership well enough in your original article Gid. I'll not continue the discussion here.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 08, 2007

LEADERS convince people to follow them, terp, they do not force them. By your logic, Saddam, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all great "leaders".

If Perry was showing LEADERSHIP, he would have stumped on the floor of the statehouse, NOT dictated terms.

The irony you seem to be missing is that if this vaccine is such a great blessing from the gods of Merck, what Perry did ultimately KILLED it. At the very least for four years. Is that leadership? I think not.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on May 09, 2007

This isn't even a close one. This vaccine should NOT be made mandatory. There's no reason for it. It's certainly not a serious health issue with maybe 1% (if that) of the population at risk.

I was told a story by a good friend of mine last week. When his son was about eight or nine years old, his dad (my good friend) spanked him. The kid went to school, told his teacher (on purpose) and the state came out to investigate. This woman, whom my friend had a hard time without sounding arrogant described her about 10 tiers below him on the intelligence scale, told him in no uncertain terms he was NOT allowed to spank his child. If he did, there would be consequences.

He said, he could do nothing but sit there and take it. He never spanked his child again and that child knew, smugly, that his father was not to touch him. To this day, this now twenty somthing kid is as unruly and mixed up an individual as can be. My friend blames the government for this and said, if they want to interfere such as this, then they can go ahead and take care of these kids they have wrestled out of the hands of their parents. His other son turned out fine.

This also happened to another friend I remember years ago. Her son, also, grew up with problems after the state came in to investigate (there was nothing wrong there) but she was very scared to discipline him after that. She was afraid the state would come in and take him away. Are we losing our minds? This is nuts.

I heard a preacher say the other day (he in his 60's) that his mother came after him with a broom after he sassed her (he deserved it he said) and she said...."I'd rather you be dead than disrespect me." He said today, she'd probably be in jail. He said his mother loved him and he knew it. He turned out well and said he owed it all to his broom toting mama.

The government is getting way too big for it's britches I'd say.

MasonM

on May 09, 2007

I agree with requiring vaccines against contagious viral diseases, but this was just stupid. Beyond contagious disease that is an actual public health risk, the government has no right to require drugs for any and every possible personal health risk that comes down the pike.

Dr Guy

on May 09, 2007

the government has no right to require drugs for any and every possible personal health risk that comes down the pike.

Especially when the cure is fatal to some (or debilitating). Let the consumer decide. It is the principal this country was founded upon, yet sadly in this age of nanny statism, forgotten.

cactoblasta

on May 09, 2007

By your logic, Saddam, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all great "leaders".

No matter how much bleeding hearts might want to deny it Stalin and Hitler were great leaders. They left an indelible stamp on their countries that changed the way the world thought. If that's not a sign of greatness I don't know what is.

I think perhaps you're getting great confused with good.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 09, 2007

I think perhaps you're getting great confused with good.

No, the point is, they weren't leadership. Leadership is not dragging someone with you by force of arms, it is convincing others of the superiority, the sanity of your point of view. Franklin Delano Roosevelt would be an example of a great leader; he led the country through tough times with some occasionally controversial decisions, but decisions that were supported by the majority of Americans, as attested by his four terms in office.

They were great dictators. They were powerful forces. But they weren't leaders.

cactoblasta

on May 09, 2007

Leadership is not dragging someone with you by force of arms, it is convincing others of the superiority, the sanity of your point of view.

So you think Hitler's rise to power was predicated entirely on the threat of his brownshirts, or that Stalin's was based entirely on the threat of murder? I think that's overly simplistic. Those tools were available because they were able, through sheer force of leadership, to command others to follow and to convince others they couldn't stop them. That is also leadership. Leadership isn't just about being nice and making difficult decisions. Sometimes its about making other people face difficult decisions and then stacking the deck in your favour - like what Kennedy did to Krushchev, or Washington did to the Brits.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 09, 2007

At any rate, cacto, whether we use your definition of leadership or mine, the fact is Perry didn't exercise leadership. He couldn't even sway enough legislators to his side to ensure that his veto would be overridden, let alone a majority...and the legislature is controlled by people of his own party.

Dr Guy

on May 09, 2007

So you think Hitler's rise to power was predicated entirely on the threat of his brownshirts, or that Stalin's was based entirely on the threat of murder?

I can see an arguement for Hitler's rise to power (although he never did get more than 33% of the vote), but Stalin? Stalin is a poor choice as he was never chosen by anyone except the politburo.

Stalin's rise to power was not predicated on anything. HIs maintenance of power was predicated on not just threats of murder, but the actual act of Murder (Trotsky anyone?).

cactoblasta

on May 09, 2007

Sure, but it's not dictatorship to use a power your society freely gives him. That's just following the rules of your particular breed of republic. If America's founders didn't want the executives to exercise that kind of power they wouldn't have given them such powers. It's undemocratic, sure, but not anti-democratic in the way that calling it dictatorial would suggest.

Rightwinger

on May 14, 2007

Well, Hitler WAS elected, even though by the time of the election, he'd either killed, scared off or managed to have banned any opposition.

I see pictures and newsreels of massed crowds cheering, right arms thrust forward as he walked to the stage or podium. That's leadership, in my book, no matter how you slice it. The German people elected a dictator and got what they wanted, come what may. And it came.
Stalin was appointed only after winning the power struggle in the wake of Lenin's death; Lenin hated him. The reign of terror he instituted, with the policies of murder, starvation and imprisonment allowed him to stay in power much longer than he would have, probably by the simple virtue of most of his true enemies being dead within a few years. Stalin's policies of purge and disgrace earned him power, but almost lost Mother Russia to the advancing forces of Hitler, since the officer staff of the Red Army had been gutted in the mid-30s, and much talent went with it.

This governor was in no position to start prescribing vaccines to the masses; his inability to pull the masses along with him by force of will, or to coerce them into seeing things his way through use of a Texas reign of terror indicates to me that both Stalin AND Hitler have this guy outclassed.

Ahem.

Governor Perry; what an asshole.

cactoblasta

on May 15, 2007

Well, Hitler WAS elected, even though by the time of the election, he'd either killed, scared off or managed to have banned any opposition.

Actually he wasn't - he was appointed Chancellor after he lost the elections and after that there weren't any.

Rightwinger

on May 16, 2007

Actually he wasn't - he was appointed Chancellor after he lost the elections and after that there weren't any.

---Cacto

Wrongo---the election of 1934, which is the one to which I refer. His ascension to power had to be finalized after Hindenberg's death. It was a landslide victory for him....his was the only name on the ballot.

drmiler

on May 17, 2007

#14 by Rightwinger
Wed, May 16, 2007 6:00 PM

Actually he wasn't - he was appointed Chancellor after he lost the elections and after that there weren't any.
---Cacto

Wrongo---the election of 1934, which is the one to which I refer. His ascension to power had to be finalized after Hindenberg's death. It was a landslide victory for him....his was the only name on the ballot.

Actually RW for once "you're" the one that's wrong! He WAS appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg.

Hitler Becomes Chancellor - 1932-1933
In September 1932, the Nazi members of the Reichstag, together with support form the Center Party elected the prominent Nazi Herman Goering as President of the Reichstag (equivalent to House Speaker). Using his new position, Goering managed to prevent the Chancellor from presenting an order to dissolve the Reichstag, whilst a vote of no confidence in the Chancellor and his government was passed. On January 30th, 1933 President Hindenburg decided to appoint Hitler Chancellor in a coalition government with Papen as Vice-Chancellor.

Although you are partially righr.

The Death of Hindenburg August 1934
President Hindenburg died on August 2nd 1934. Hitler had already agreed with the Cabinet that upon Hindenburg's death the offices of President and Chancellor would be combined. Having already ensured the support of the Army, Hitler went a step further by making the whole of the armed forces swear an oath of loyalty to him personally. A plebiscite was then held - 90% of voters gave their approval. Thus Hitler had become Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor and the title of President was then abolished.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!