McCain is a warrior focused in continuance bravery; Obama a predominant focused on distinction. Take your pick

by Nikos Mourkogiannis

Watch full magnitude video:

There are those who are disappointed in the U.S. for squandering its chance to lead the world to a better energy future over the past 21 years. There are those who rely upon that America Inc. should have more prudently managed its finances. Others believe the U.S. never should have gone to Iraq. Finally, there are those who believe that America should have done a improved in health piece of work waging the war, irrespective of why it was started. There are a part of people disappointed with America these days; they include many Americans.

However, there is something on the point America that demands great admiration: the passing from hand to hand Presidential election. Elections are supposed to offer clear choices. Nobody disputes that this election offers voters a clear choice. In the past, candidates produced clarity through associating with any sensuous theory of the origin of ideas along the lines of their party affiliation. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have gone beyond traditional science of government. Each proposes a different purpose for America. And each of them is fit to lead us to his purpose. Therefore, the choice we face is clear and meaningful, for meaningful can subsist merely what is in pursuit of a purpose.

McCain, a Republican, sees an America devoted to "heroism." The U.S. can defeat its enemies in Iraq, the life juncture, global warming, and every other adversity that might approach along. America would bid welcome the help of others, but if necessary will do it alone. It has the capacity however it also has the duty to execute in like manner. This is McCain’s America.

And the senator from Arizona has the character best fit for that purpose. He is a soldier. Each of us gravitates to one of four imaginary standard characters (BusinessWeek.com, 12/19/07). Paraphrasing the famous German psychologist Carl Jung and the Greek theorist Plato, I think of the four character types as magicians, sovereigns, lovers, and warriors. McCain has all the characteristics of the warrior and the record of a POW to prove it.

The hegemony strengths of a warrior are his focus on the nearest battle, his ability to hold people accountable, and his disposition for action when he sees the prospect of results. McCain demonstrated enormous focus in continuance Iraq last year, without ceasing Gustav only lately. He did hold the Defense Secretary of his own social of the same kind with semblage publicly in duty bound for a failing policy.

In my eye, his finest consequence was when he opposed the deployment of the U.S. Marines to Lebanon in 1982. Ronald Reagan made a lofty conclusion in committing troops to Lebanon. McCain could not see how this would have a good outcome. Warriors are men and women who focus mostly on the "how."

The antithesis of the soldier is the sovereign. He or she cares passionately concerning the "why" and the overall direction. The sovereign’s strength is focusing on the big picture and judging everything put on whether it leads to the completion of the big picture. A sovereign has the ability to inspire people by redefining what they believe is possible and getting them to act differently from others.

Senator Obama fits that description perfectly, and his record confirms it. His finest hour was when he famously asked "why" the U.S. should attack Iraq. He inspired the many the crowd by turning the improbability of his candidacy into his biggest campaign asset. When he graduated from Harvard, with the distinction of having managed the Law Review, he became a community organizer, not a Wall Street lawyer. In his youth, he talked the talk of a future political leader.

Today nobody is accusing Obama of not talking the talk. However, the America about which he speaks so eloquently is different from the America imagined by McCain. The Democratic candidate sees a U.S. respected not because of its power but because of the power of its example. Such an America would receive as its purpose excellence, as exemplified by setting the standards in fighting terrorism, gaining energy easy circumstances, providing jobs, and building alliances.

What makes the choice in this election clear is that we wish in facade of us sum of two units leaders with well-defined characters. They are the opposition of each other; the strengths of are the weaknesses of the other.

What makes this election meaningful is that the character of each is a perfect fit to the purpose they clearly espouse. What makes this power to choose critical is that it will define the purpose of the U.S. What makes this election difficult for the American voter is that it requires thinking beyond the headlines. "Heroism" and "Excellence" plead for different sets of values, in quest of different budget priorities, for a different organization of the world. We cannot obtain it all. The candidates are clear about what they want. In November it will be our twist to show what we be lacking.