APPLIED LINGUISTICS

I am reasonably familiar with the phenomenon of a politician who manages to make a name for himself based for the most part on chance events, or other people’s legacies, and so forth.

In my eyes, and in the eyes of many others, Benjamin Netanyahu could very well illustrate the case in point. The death of Yonatan – his popular elder brother – during the Entebbe rescue mission had a tremendous impact on Bibi’s political career. He made sure to use his brother’s name in meaning, shape and form in order to promote himself; it was not a subtle affair (Bibi has never been accused of being subtle anyhow).

El Presidente’s era also presents parallels. Shortly after his highly disputed election victory, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 rocked his and our world and propelled him into a more prominent presidential role. The way he responded to those tragic events then helped shape the American opinion of him as a self-confident and reliable leader.

Now this accidentally constructed but carefully nurtured public image is in serious danger: the administration’s response to Katrina, the war in Iraq, gas price hikes – all this is calling into question this president’s leadership skills.

But honestly – El Presidente was never a leader, at least not in my book. This has nothing to do with the fact that he is a poor speaker and that he comes across as uncultured and harsh beyond the norms of acceptability for a country of the stature of the United States. It also has nothing to do with the fact that he takes pride in his provincial mentality and lack of international appeal.

As an American president, El Presidente falls way behind his predecessors. My political alter-ego and co-worker (J.A.S., you’re the best) is right in pointing out the blatant constrast between the speeches (and overall attitude) made by Clinton, Bush Sr. and El Presidente at Reagan’s funeral.

Perhaps this should be a linguistic argument on the meaning of leadership, first premise being that cocky and leader are not two interchangeable terms. To begin with, the first is an adjective (synonym with overconfident, boastful, arrogant - to name a few) and the second is a noun (boss, head, manager).The fact that El Presidente is cocky means, at best, that he might have been raised as a spoiled brat, or self-entitlement from his part, or it can even be perceived as a form of defense mechanism.

Being cocky does not make the head of the country a leader. Of course, in theory he could be both – but real leaders, they come in various forms. I tend to have a personal preference for the ones who are smart. Cocky is not a decisive factor in any case, and probably quite the opposite. Brains, character, personality: these are key determinants. It just so happens I never spotted any of that in El Presidente. So very sad. Tough luck, America.