In speeches over the weekend, McCain explains his constant attacking by saying he "a fighter."
That seems accurate, though I'm not certain why fighting has gained a good reputation. What we want are favorable outcomes, and fighting is usually best saved for the last resort. If you can get a job done with negotiation or persuasion or compensation or consensus, aren't all those better than fighting? Hillary fought for a national medical plan, she fought and fought, as she told us and told us -- but she failed. Since fighting is expected to count for something, shouldn't failing be counted too? McCain would have people believe that fighting on its own is some kind of favorable attribute. I have some resistance to the concept of politicians being fighters (and I'm not fighting it), mostly because fighters need enemies, constant enemies, enemies all around.
So who are McCain's enemies? Let's start with the one named most often: Special Interest Groups, a murky term that refers to... well, to every single group on Earth since special interests are the reason groups form -- their special interest is the whole idea. So that's a lot of enemies for McCain. Palin also fights these same groups, she tells us. She fought special interest groups when she was a mayor, and oh damn, there they were again when she was Governor, and now, you gotta just keep fightin' em, because there they are again.
Another enemy: Washington Insiders. Who are Washington Insiders? The people who actually manage the government, represent the voters, make the laws, have the power. Yeah, fighting them seems the best strategy -- fight them to the last man. Then you have victory, another concept these fighters talk a lot about.
Normally, being a fighter is not a qualification for anything -- other than fighting. There are professional fighters; they have to fight, signed a contract and all. There's street fighters; often, they have to fight too. Bar fighters, well they could walk away, but they like fighting. And then there are Special-Interest-Group-fighters, and they have to fight because... well I don't know why exactly.
Here's McCain at a speech in Colorado (where he's fighting): "I am an American and I choose to fight. We never give up." The same day a friend of McCain's told the Sunday Telegraph that "John's whole life has been about the fight. He won't tolerate those who won't fight." This was said in the context of McCain's enemy-du-jour: defeatist members of his own campaign staff who dare to think about their post-election employment, since it might not be at The White House. McCain tells us, "I'm not afraid of the fight, I'm ready for it," and "I have fought for you most of my life."
We've all known people like this, and usually, we couldn't wait to get away from them. McCain-2008, even as he describes himself, is the kind of person you wouldn't hire, or more accurately someone that everyone in the workplace would regret ever was hired, the kind of person supervisors are always looking to shift to another department, the guy about whom managers frequently say, "We've got to get rid of McCain," but they know it's going to be so much trouble to fire him that they delay and delay until it's really tough to get rid of the guy. I've got whole chapters in my books [on preventing violence] about guys who behave like McCain. I'm not joking.
Changing the context is instructive: Instead of running for president, imagine this kind of guy is seeking a promotion with your company. Say he wants to be Regional Manager (which in a sense is accurate to McCain, except that the region is enormous). He sends you lists of his accomplishments (his heroic acts), but you can see that the biggest of them (being a prisoner of war) wasn't his idea and wasn't voluntary. Sure, he's had some substantial disciplinary actions taken against him (Keating 5), but that's just because he's a fighter, or that's because he was targeted by co-workers who were jealous of him. Yes, he destroyed or lost a lot of expensive comzpany equipment (crashed three aircraft) but that's because he's a fighter. OK, so maybe he doesn't have the temperament you'd want in a pilot, but he's not applying for the position of pilot. If he were, wouldn't that be the easiest-ever employment decision? (Try and be comfortable on the flight after you hear "This is Captain John McCain and I'll be your pilot tonight.")
This employee's promotion is half-heartedly supported by other disgruntled, angry, combative, difficult, or gullible employees. Not exactly your stellar performers, but you listen carefully to all their points - even though you've heard them all before. After a while, even some of their diehard efforts start to die, and as most co-workers begin to accept that he's not going to get the promotion, they abandon the cause. And now, this guy's really a fighter. Now he's fighting them, he's fighting you, he's even fighting the supporters that remain. Why? Because he's a fighter! Like he told us.
There are several features of the kind of person you never want to hire. My firm tests for the ones that are most predictive of problems. Put McCain-2008 through a few of the actual inquiries we apply when screening candidates:
"Tell me about a failure in your life and tell me why it occurred."
Does the applicant say he cannot think of one? If he can describe something he perceives as a failure, does he take responsibility for it or does he blame others (e.g., "I never graduated high school because those damned teachers didn't know how to motivate me")?
Blaming others is the single most telling feature of a person you don't want to hire. McCain famously dropped and abandoned his terribly injured wife. He blamed the Viet Cong. (Though he too had been terribly wounded, note that she didn't dump him.)
"How do you go about solving problems at work?"
Good answers are that he consults with others, weighs all points of view, discusses them with involved parties, etc. Unfavorable answers contain a theme of confrontation (e.g., "I tell the source of the problem he'd better straighten up," or "I go right to the man in charge and lay it on the line").
Remind you of anybody?
"Who is your best friend and how would you describe your friendship?"
This question stumped me. Who is John McCain's best friend? It's tough for fighters to hang onto friends (and really tough for those friends who do hang on). Typically, as these fighters age, they become more angry, more rigid, more unpleasant, and friends hang on out of loyalty or nostalgia. They continue to say they are great friends - only they see the fighter less and less often. Maybe the question for current Job-Applicant McCain would be Who among your great friends remains a friend today? (We've all been watching that list shorten.)
McCain: "What America needs now is a fighter."
Really? What for exactly? Would you want a surgeon who's combative at the hospital, combative in the operating room? Or a teacher? Or a CEO? One job (other than fighter) where fighting is occasionally useful might be trial lawyer. However, it isn't the fighting you hire the guy for: It's the strategy! And America does not have to continue devolving into what resembles an ugly lawsuit. Great countries, like great men, have many resources and ideals to draw upon. We all have it in us to fight, but hopefully, that's not our only (or most pronounced) characteristic.
There are occasionally real enemies one must contend with, and would we want America to relate to international adversaries with McCain's approach?
Obama can fight too, of course -- but oh man, it's a different strategy he applies. And oh look, it's the one that works.
"The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking". Sun Tzu
I don't debunk this leadership trait completely but believe it shouldn't be an administrative leader's primary focus; at best it's a beneficial additive to an already-established set of technical qualities.
Like anything else too much of anything can be bad and the fight in fighters is no exception. Technical qualities are always an exception to this famous quote and is the reason why many voters across both aisles are confident in Obama's newness, is that he erases fight for in-priority traits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
in a computer simulation the 'tit for tat' strategy was found to be very robust, it cooperates on the first turn, then in subsequent turns does what its opponent did the last turn, if tit for tat faces itself it cooperates every turn, if it is 'betrayed' it betrays back the next turn.
Tit-for-Tat has 4 features that make it robust, it's Nice, Retaliating, Forgiving, and Non-Envious.
i.e. it starts assuming the positive, it gives quick punishment of betrayal, quick forgiveness, and it doesn't try to be evil or tricksy. it also provides a clarity of strategy (it's easy for the opponent to figure out what tit-for-tat is doing) that encourages its opponent to cooperate
Rather a trouble maker, school yard bully, or life long thrill seeker. Someone who thrives in conflict.
A real fighter has a goal byond himself and needs to be able to control his emotions.
Humans are (supposedly) above that sort of thing. We can build, we can plan, we can come up with creative solutions that actually don't require fighting. But then, it's back to the mucho macho thing - if you don't need to fight, you become soft, weak.
How do we deal with that mindset?
(with infinite apologies to the Simpsons and the Ichy and Scratchy show!)
Wonder why that line ialways gets added on.
A subtle reminder, perhaps, to garner sympathy?
I want someone who thinks on my behalf, not one who beats people up for me.