Teacher or Warrior

Learning pros have an interesting choice in this US presidential election between a teacher and a warrior.

One candidate is a warrior who spent his formative years in military service. At the center of many things that a warrior does, the hot core is to fight. He rushes toward adversity and sacrifices everything to overcome it.

A softer term "maverick" has been coined market this warrior, meaning that he is contrary, but that seems insincere. The warrior's modus operandi is not independence, but opposition. He is a soldier and conformist, not a maverick.

In contrast to the warrior, the other candidate is a teacher who spent his formative years in school and public service. He also taught for a decade at the University of Chicago. While there he wrote a lengthy meditation on life and values. At the center of many things this teacher does, the cool core is to impart knowledge.

Teachers are not much good at fighting because they are grossly ineffective in opposition. They view adversity as a problem to be reconciled rather than crushed. Most of the terms used to describe this candidate-teacher tie back to his vocation. He truly is a man of plowshares and not of swords.

The same person cannot be both a teacher and a warrior. The only exceptions occur in our imagination. They have names like Merlin, Gandolf and Indiana Jones. In reality, warriors are not teachers and teachers are not warriors. Warriors are deciders; teachers are seekers.

The United States was founded and has been led mostly by warriors. Our leaders attained distinction on the battlefield rather than at the lectern. The current administration is no different. It has approached every challenge the way warriors must, on a mission.

In a distressed and conflicted world, we may wonder whether a teacher or a warrior is the leader we want to follow next. It is important to realize that there is a sublime difference.

Comments

[Devremülk]

i like to read your posts. thanks for this one.

[Bob]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. My post is not meant to be political. It's an attempt to explain how the teacher contrasts with the warrior because of how they approach things. I agree with your twists; they explain why the comparison is interesting.

If you have a moment, please read an earlier post on the topic of warriors: http://beckermultimedia.typepad.com/weblog/2008/06/training-evolution.html

[Joe]

Not sure how I got on your mailing list. If you are in business to sell your services, I prefer to keep business and politics separate.

Articles like this might be more appropriate removed from the run-up to the election. There might be more value if used perhaps more as a retrospective, or after the election as a look forward to what or how the candidate may address his/her presidency.

Taking your approach, with a cynical twist, one might say those who are warriors, try to be decisive, but often can be divisive.

For those who are teachers, the old saying might apply, "Those who can, DO, those who can't teach."

Of course, maybe I am a little jaded with all of the rhetoric from the candidates, their parties, so called "news shows", celebrity endorsements, and those who someone has labled as a "political pundit".