Disinterested = Great Candidate

Volunteers


They are everywhere - church, school, work, and unfortunately even in government.  In church, they are the person who volunteers for everything, and when they arrive the first day, they take dominate - whether by their actions or their presence.  They also show up at your child's class to volunteer or simply be helpful - offering their expertise, they taught decades ago, yet know everything you need to know, and despite the fact they dealt with pre-schoolers, are fully aware how to handle tenth graders.  When they finish at school and church, they are always around at work - volunteering for very nearly everything, and ensuring their opinions / thoughts are known to everyone.

Do we really want those professional volunteers?  Do we want people who live to be - whatever the being' may be.  Do you want a person who lives to be the volunteer - that their life is defined by the act of being.  They have no other measure for who and what they are, but for volunteering or working or ... They feel compelled to 'show off', or perhaps we could say, they have an overwhelming desire to share what they know with everyone else, whether or not they should, and regardless of the effect upon those around them.

It may be argued that who better to offer their thoughts or volunteer than someone who has done it.  True enough, but, remember why you disliked 'those' people when they were volunteering.  Now you seem to believe their obsession with the pursuit of a job is noteworthy.  It shows a 'can do' attitude (apologies to the Seabees) ... but unlike the Navy's SeaBees, these people are productive, at a cost.

When George Washington retired, he melted into the scenery, with little commentary afterward.  He wrote private letters and spoke to friends, but he did not meddle in the affairs of the Adams administration.  He did accept a position to assist in raising an army, without comment on whether war was necessary or not - an army was important.

Often these men call upon their predecessors for help, for no one has an understanding of the difficulty governing than someone who has, but we also see a pattern in this involvement.  More often, it is private and never revealed (or perhaps not for years or decades, or perhaps when an ex-president has passed away).  Johnson retires to his ranch in Texas and Nixon sits in the Oval Office - did Johnson ever speak out on Vietnam or his limited contacts with the Nixon administration?  No.  How about Nixon and Ford.  Did Ford admit to Nixon having offered thoughts on Cambodia or China?  No.  Did Carter call upon anyone?  Many times he had Kissinger offer his thoughts, but all private.  Carter also had Arman Hammer involve himself on Soviet issues - privately. 

The greatest compliment one could be called in the 18th century might be 'disinterested'.   Colonists, and thereafter Americans were suspicious of politicians and lawyers.  What we valued were men who, when called upon, came forward, served, and melted into the scenery when done.  It takes a very special human being to manage that feat, for the presidency creates ego.  Sitting in the most powerful seat on earth takes what ego you have and inflates it 1000%.  You believe you are the font of all knowledge and brilliance and cannot simply disappear for your ego is unfed and after years of having your every whim catered to, you feel compelled to thrust yourself upon the nation - as often as you possibly can.  Ego.

You may also find an ex-president thrusting himself upon the nation for another reason - he feels unfulfilled, he loses his identity when he leaves office.  His life is never complete again and he searches for meaning - in always being front and center of every event at any time. or offering his opinion even when not asked.

We all remember why we don't like those volunteers.

Disinterest - someone who does not live to be, but does to serve, holding their ego in check, more often than not through prayer, for humanism does not contain the ego, it lets it bloom - religion and faith tend to hold the ego in place if rendered faithfully.

This is the leader we want, whether they are eloquent or not, whether they be a Democrat or Republican.  I would take a Democrat who was 'disinterested' over a Republican with an obsession or need, to be the president.  I would trust the Democrat more.  His brightness and eloquence is less relevant than you might believe.  His disinterest, far more relevant.

We should look for the guy who had a life, who was comfortable with his life before, who values his privacy and is as comfortable in whatever his roles, does not take himself or anyone else too seriously, has good insight into people, and a general knowledge of events and places, but equally as important - he possesses a sense of humor.  That is the ideal.






Bush tells aides he seeks 'anonymity'


Feb 26 04:37 PM US/Eastern


Former US president George W. Bush told a group of his White House aides at a breakfast Friday that he is "trying to regain a sense of anonymity," an event attendee confirmed to AFP.

Bush also told the group that he was pleased former vice president Dick Cheney had taken a lead role in defending their national security policies, declaring: "I'm glad Cheney is out there."

The former president, who also touted his administration's domestic agenda, said he was resolved to keep a low profile and indicated he did not want to be a thorn in the side of President Barack Obama.

"I have no desire to see myself on television. I don't want to be on a panel of formers instructing the currents on what to do. I'm trying to regain a sense of anonymity," Bush said.

"I didn't like it when a certain former president -- and it wasn't 41 or 42 -- made my life miserable," he said in a reference to Jimmy Carter, who infuriated the Bush White House in 2007 when he accused the administration of allowing the use of torture on terror suspects.

The online political publication Politico first reported the remarks at the breakfast, which was closed to the media.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Bush