Weaponized Principles - When crazies and ineffectuals lash out

The polarized leaders of the world all share a common trait in leader ship styles. They each rely on the rhetoric of acting on principle and encapsulating that principle in a nice easy to swallow or religious tone, rule or fundamental requirement.

President Bush, President Chavez and President Ahmadinejad all share this style. They take action on world stages basing their actions on principles but stirring their local political bases to action by lacing their rhetoric in religious concepts and tones.

Each plays to their own religions hot points or buttons. Bush works under the concept of acting the simpleton, the common man, the down to the salt of the earth 'rancher' with a good ol' boy accent and many misplaced words and accents to connect to his base. President Chavez similarly fires up his base by providing impassioned dialogue against Bush. Both Bush and Chavez speak in the same terms, almost. Bush calls on the incarnation of evil where as Chavez attempts to summons the world to recognize Bush as the Devil. Two different hemispheres of culture and a slight variation of the same christian religion.

Then there is Ahmadinejad operating from a hemisphere opposite that of Bush and Chavez in the geographical sense and in the religious sense. However, Ahmadinejad and Chavez live in the same economic hemisphere, the hemisphere of petroleum. All three rely on each other. Bush dependent on the world's oil and suppliers like Ahmadinejad and Chavez. Chavez and Ahmadinejad both dependent on the consumption of the West. They'v recently seen new consumption opportunities in China, but fail to recognize that the consumption is not truly Chinese in nature. China has in recent years been working as a middle man for Western consumption. The world is pushing China to become ever more dependent and increase their own consumption almost like a historical repetition of the consumption of a 19th century opiate.

China recognizes this risk and struggles to find a middle ground that will not bind them to one side or the other.

The problem with this parlee is that the three leaders have weaponized their principles. They use the ends to justify any means whether or not that means is crazy, or inneffectual or unfair. As politicians all three are very successful in attracting attention, there's hardly any bad press in politics when weaponized principles laced with heart penetrating religion is utilized. All press can be used to justify a message to the local grass roots support of their base.

Just as when a hand gun is removed from the hands of a criminal, when their weaponized principles are removed or stripped away all three leaders appear to be devoid of substance or tangible positive results.
Bush has fought a war of terror campaign that has removed two nation state regimes from power, but in doing so he has created a breeding ground across the middle east and asia for new home grown terrorist cells.
Chavez has succeeded in isolating his country from many nations of the world especially his best paying customers and alligning himself with the agitative dictators and fringe groups that might have dropped from the radar of the world political stage if not infused with his touch of oil power.
Ahmadinejad has succeeded in scare tactic politics. Iran might have successfully lobbied for the use of peaceful nuclear technologies and systems. However, when their development actions were combined with the weaponized principle rhetoric of Ahmadinejad fire-brand of quasi religious rhetoric, many very practical people and countries doubt his sincerity.

It can all be summed up with the concept that all three benefit and suffer from on the world stage. Its hard to believe a country that tells you that they mean you no harm when their leader states, "I mean you harm and anyone else that scares me."

Technorati Tags: weaponized principles, chavez, bush, Ahmadinejad