So Dan, who knows a lot more about this than me, started talking the other day about styles of mayors. There are several, but one way to tell 'em all apart would be "cheerleaders" -- yes, Rendell, but also Giuliani -- vs. "managers." That would be Bloomberg and, I firmly believe, master-of-detail John Street. Dan's theory was that cheerleading is out and managers are in.
Setting aside the obvious -- that simple divisions are the crutch of journalists blogging on a beautiful Friday late morning -- let's talk about this a little.
If you watch the newest of WHYY's outstanding "Counter Intelligence" videos, you'll hear a bunch of bloggers say that the Next Mayor they want needs to be a little bit of a cheerleader. That's simplifying their points, of course -- you really should watch the video -- but what do we mean by "leadership" if we don't mean cheerleading? Do we really want the Next Mayor to have a grasp of the finer points of running a city but be unable to move us to action? And anyway, isn't the best leader someone with an eye on the big picture, who is skilled at getting others to do her/his bidding?
Thoughts? Anyone still inside today?
Comments (2)
Geez, guess that answered my question.
Posted by Wendy | June 16, 2006 11:57 PM
Hey Wendy,
It's Sunday and I'm inside today. Great post! Now that I'm done with two and half days of "other duties as assigned" I can get back to the most important duty... blogging!
DP
Oh and for the record, I'm all for the cheerleader type as long as he or she is able to pick top-notch, high quality, intelligent and good character people to take care of the "finer points of running the city." He or she should also come across as smart and well-spoken, with the ability to say the right thing in any situation without just trying to say the "political thing" that no one disagrees with.
Posted by Dan | June 18, 2006 11:57 AM