Bill Clinton - Daring to question some of his decisions

Today, I read an article in "The Guardain" (12/11/11) about Bill Clinton where he has set himself (quote) "a new new mantra. One a day ... he makes it a rule to find a reason to say "I didn't know that " and "I was wrong". He takes it so seriously that if the opportunity doesn't come up naturally, he creates one".

I find this a good "mantra". One should always question the decisions one makes and see whether these are/were good decisions. It shows great leadership if one dares to say one was wrong on certain decisions (although many people would disagree). It shows great leadership that one dares to listen to advisers and dares to change ones mind when necessary. Of course, one does not always have to change its mind about certain things (e.g. human rights (although this doesn't mean one can't punish people who do evil)). That is why I like President Obama: he decided to employ many advisers and therefore often it takes longer than people expect to make a decisions about certain things because President Obama wants to make a good decisions. But the pressure to make quick decisions is high (and often, after a while we regret a quick decision). So, President Obama, keep thinking before making decisions!! (But one thing, always take wise decisions and don't listen too much to the extreme rightwing Tea Party as so many other politicians do, even when that means no agreement can be reached. But, one needs to know their concerns and address them and sometimes adjust decisions to their concerns (e.g. the health care ensurance might be too expensive for some people and empoverish them, therefore it is a bad law for these people and a solution should be found.)

Mr Clintons problem is he goes too far in his mantra. He says that if he can't find something bad, he creates something, therefore he creates a lie. If one cannot find something one did wrong, one should accept this. One can then say that one thinks others are doing something wrong. So he should make his mantra more balanced.

I would advice him to find each day one good decision (I assume he will find that at least some of his decisions were good) and one bad decision preferably related to the good one. These decisions can be made by him or, if necessary, by others. By citing a good decision, one can start reasoning how to continue improving that decision while by citing a bad (related) decision, one can try to think how one should correct the bad decision and implement it with the good decisions taken so that good decisions become even better and decisions opposing good ones can be changed for the better.

In conclusion
Bad decisions are sometimes necessary to show why one should not go further in a certain direction. Thus, this means one should be able to acknowledge mistakes made and one should be allowed to change ones ideas for the better. So, I agree with the title in the article "The Guardians" mentioned above: "Leaders are fallible. We must allow them to admit that". More generally, we should allow people to make errors and allow them to learn from them and allow them to change direction without complaining that changing ones own opinion is proof of being weak or incompetent. (E.g. the financial world should mean it when they say sorry and only then they will allow advice from others to change the banking system for the better. But admitting they were wrong, they will also accept responsibility and accept they will not receive a bonus. And this is one of the problems why so many do want to accept responsability. The other is they don't want to show their weakness.)


Popular posts from this blog

Brexit, refugee crisis and the EU

(7i) Return to (travel) business in times of a virus

(20b) Coronavirus statistics: how to present data about cases and mortality