I couldn't help but think about the differences in these two politicians while reading an op-ed in today's NY Times by David Brooks titled "Goodness and Power".

I'll post some excerpts and see the picture of a divergence in these two souls (like the divergence between Mandela and Hitler). He was asking the question of Hillary Clinton - lack of trustworthiness but a strong leader. You'll see why Indians admired Jagdeo and Moses, late in the day, showed the contrast and his trustworthiness will outlast Jagdeo's bluster.

================================

Apparently there are a lot of Americans who believe that Hillary Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy but also a strong leader.

Let’s set aside her specific case for a second. These poll results raise a larger question: Can you be a bad person but a strong leader?

The case for that proposition is reasonably straightforward. Politics is a tough, brutal arena. People play by the rules of the jungle. Sometimes to get anything done, a leader has to push, bully, intimidate, elide the truth. The qualities that make you a good person in private life — kindness, humility and a capacity for introspection — can be drawbacks on the public stage. Electing a president is different than finding a friend or lover. It’s better to hire a ruthless person to do a hard job.

I get that argument, but outside the make-believe world of “House of Cards,” it’s usually wrong. Voting for someone with bad private morals is like setting off on a battleship with awesome guns and a rotting hull. There’s a good chance you’re going to sink before the voyage is over.

People who are dishonest, unkind and inconsiderate have trouble attracting and retaining good people to their team. They tend to have sleazy friends. They may be personally canny, but they are almost always surrounded by sycophants and second-raters who kick up scandal and undermine the leader’s effectiveness.

Leaders who lack humility are fragile. Their pride is bloated and sensitive. People are never treating them as respectfully as they think they deserve. They become consumed with resentments. They treat politics as battle, armor up and wall themselves off to information and feedback.

You may think they are championing your cause or agenda, but when the fur is flying, they are really only interested in defending themselves. They keep an enemies list and life becomes a matter of settling scores and imagining conspiracies. They jettison any policy that might hurt their standing.

It is a paradox of politics that the people who set out obsessively to succeed in it usually end up sabotaging themselves. They treat each relationship as a transaction and don’t generate loyalty. They lose any honest internal voice. After a while they can’t accurately perceive themselves or their situation. Sooner or later their Watergate will come.

===================================

You see why the people who are in the PPP leadership are as breathtakingly visionary as a lamp post. You see how Jagdeo surrounded himself with idiots.

This past weekend we had a hugely successful QC reunion in New York and I remarked that this had to do not with a transactional approach but a relational one. It is relationships that engender great success not one of a transactional nature where there is quid pro quo or what have you done for me.