We the People...giving up our power

I am sorry that sometimes I have such a suspicious mind. I like what Barack Obama has to say, but one also must understand the bases of power. I think Barack Obama is a force to listen to because he has the legitimate bases of authority, which are, rational-legal; traditional; and charismatic, or does he?

On the basis that the people of Illinois gave him power when they offered him the authority of being their senator, then, the has rational legal authority. However, because he has only been a Senator for two years this authority structure is weak and may not withstand the scrutiny of other candidates.

Through history, United States Senators have made attempts of stepping into the executive branch. Since, therefore, Barack Obama is a U.S. Senator he has traditional authority to seek the office of the President of the United States. Again, with just one-third of his first term as Senator under his belt Barack Obama has diminished experience in which to draw upon. His lack of traditional and rational-legal authority means he must display even more exemplary character if he expects to win the party's nomination for president; let alone the presidency.

The last one is a bit trickier. A person with a charismatic personality does not necessarily have charismatic authority. In order to have true charismatic authority one must possess an exemplary character, or almost a heroism persona. It is this authority that has helped so many generals in this country become president. Also, religious leaders and monarchies derive their leaders predominately from the charisma of the individual.

These are the bases of control for all bureaucratic/organizational power structures. No person will have all three in equal quantities, but in order to lead must understand the need of those they intend to lead to offer them their power to do so.

It is plausible for one to have power, but no authority in which to use the power because of lack of respect for ones authority. This is one reason why politicians say they do not listen to polls, and then live by them, because they know they could, well may, die by them.

I think that one reason most Americans resent presidential elections is this lack of charismatic authority of all candidates. Look at what happened in the 2000 election as a classic example. This election would not have been as close as it was had Mr. Gore, or Mr. Bush accomplished defining their individual character as exemplary.

There will always be negative attacks during political campaigns, especially campaigns for national office, so this argument is no excuse for not winning the battle for charismatic authority. In fact, to enable circumvention of the negative attacks it is imperative to define the candidate’s exemplary qualitities.

It is really sad that because a person decides to seek a political office that we get to scrutinize that person's personal life and that is the purpose of defining charisma. We should rather be defining the candidate's views of happiness, and his ideals of knowledge and reason.

How important is money, and henceforth, making much of it to the candidate? Where does the candidate view him/herself in the context of the universe? How open is the candidate to other viewpoints (include provable examples in their answer)? These are just a sampling of some of the questions we should be asking in analyzing any candidate's charisma.