I’ve been more active in “advocating” my support for Gordon in the recent days. It was prompted by some article of a person who’s “reasoning” kinda turned me off. Not because it was wrong per se, but simply because it was a bit “shallow” (for lack of a better word) given the stakes.

My thesis is pretty simple with regards to choosing a leader for the country: Get the most qualified person for the job. Now that may be easy to say and every camp has it’s own [legitimate] arguments as to why they claim their candidate to be “qualified.” Given that all candidates seem to be “qualified,” it really leaves us with one delineating factor – and the funny thing is that it’s not really that different from an employer choosing a new employee.

From my field of work, I can say with certainty that the things we read in resumes or CVs mean less and less as the world continues to modernize. What we really pay attention to is an individual’s portfolio. That is to say, what actual things has he/she done This is important especially in our line of work as the real visionaries tend to be the people you least expect. That and most talented people in the tech industry have some form of “Aspergers”

In politics, one’s “resume” is what we usually see: the candidate’s marketing of themselves. And all three candidates worth considering (Gibo, Gordon, Noy) have their respective “impressive” traits (for lack of a better term) on paper. It’s but natural to assume that all of them will oversell themselves in one way or the other – nothing wrong with that; after all, that’s how you get a job.

That’s the resume, but the portfolio is another thing… it’s the actual tangible accomplishments – and that’s where certain candidates clearly start to set themselves apart from the rest.

Talk is Cheap, Results Matter

Here’s a simple test you can do to determine the objective potential of any candidate.

We have all candidates claiming they’ll end corruption… now give me an example where your candidate actually tried to do that. Then once you have found your legitimate “example”, compare it to how Gordon has tried to address it.

Or say, how to deal with poverty; each candidate is full of platitudes and promises (it should come with the package, Gordon is no different) but apply the same test; what has your candidate done to alleviate poverty? Then once you find your example, compare it to Gordon’s efforts on that front as well.

How about economics? If applicable, what has your candidate done to communities they were in charge of? Was it better than what Gordon was able to with his projects? Hell, even his his running mate (Bayani) has probably done more than the other presidentiables.

Same goes with crisis management. Has your candidate ever been tasked to handle something like that? If so, what have they done? How did it fare compared to how Gordon dealt with crises with communities he was in-charge of?

On Gibo

If you would notice, I don’t really criticize Gibo supporters for choosing to vote Gibo. This is because, just like with Gordon, he also has something to show for all his talk. He’s relatively young but he has already done so much. If he keeps at it, he might just well be similar to Gordon as being a man of action.

I’ll admit, just like any “non-supporter,” I am concerned about his potential loyalty to the previous administration. However, I while I do factor this in, I do not use it as the tipping point for not choosing him. Because I realize that that concern is a subjective claim – the only way to really know if he has the backbone to know when to make the distinction between responsibilities vs. utang-na-loob is if and when he takes office.

My choosing of Gordon over him is not because of speculating about where the latter’s loyalties lie – I’m choosing Gordon simply because he’s more capable, more experienced… and most importantly, all these claims are not speculation – there is a track record that corroborates his perceived capablities (based on what he has done).

My beef with [most] Noynoy supporters

Sadly, most of my beef really is with Noynoy supporters. But it’s worth saying that my main frustration isn’t because of the their choice per se, ¹ like I said, all three are way better than the rest in the lineup – it would be a tragedy to have someone like Villar or Erap winning but the reasons for which they chose him. I even blogged about it months ago

The thing is, when I try to pigeonhole the common denominator of what I think leads people like Noynoy supporters to decide the way they do is that they choose with their hearts rather with their heads. This is not to say its wrong – but it is, to me, very unwise.

Also, I’m not saying that because they decide with their hearts – that they aren’t using their brains at all. What I’m just saying is that the “priorities” they’re applying clearly indicates that they are more subjective deciders than objective ones. Again, this is not wrong at all… but like I said earlier, it’s unwise.

Now you might say “well that’s pretty presumptuous of you isn’t it? To think that we choose Noynoy because we think subjectively? What if we really believe with his credentials and qualifications?”

Certainly an argument worth addressing, and here’s my answer: I said earlier, it isn’t a matter of them being qualified as I’d would like to think they all are to certain degrees… the question at this point is who’s the most qualified – and more importantly, who has the best chance of actually following through (because qualifications mean shit if you can’t walk the talk) And sorry to say, anyone who claims that someone like Noynoy is more qualified than Gibo or Gordon has got their head buried in the sand – just apply the test I mentioned earlier and the truth of what I had just said becomes painfully obvious.

I hope Noynoy supporters would stop being so defensive and just admit that you’re voting for him simply because you like him. Factoring all complexities of decision making, etc. even assuming you also applied objective reasoning… you have to admit that it’s an accurate and fair assumption that at the very least, Noynoy supporters are being more subjective than objective.

There’s is an exception I’m personally fine with – and I have my friend Juan to thank for that. He supports Noynoy because Noynoy’s platform, according to him, puts some emphasis on health care. The rest of the candidates (including Gordon) are usually more focused on the usual suspects: Education, Poverty, Corruption, etc. My friend has an extremely rare [and expensive!] condition – so I totally respect his choice of Noy’s platform in that context. That may have been a decision based a personal need (as against the greater good of the people), but it’s not subjective IMHO – my friend’s need is real, and the platform supports health care… and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to take care of yourself first and foremost.

However, just like I mentioned in my old blog entry – if you’re of the camp that simply thinks Noynoy’s the best because he’s humble, “incorruptible,” ² which we will yet have to see if he becomes president his pedigree, etc. Then you have to admit you’re being subjective.

I’ll now demonstrate that while, like I said, there’s nothing wrong with it (to each his own), it is indeed unwise to decide that way.

Faux Psychology

I’m putting “faux” in there, because, as Marian Rivera would probably say it, I’m NOT a PSYCHOLOGY. Therefore I do not claim to be an authority on it. But I have observed enough to make this generalization which has yet to be disproven.

Most humans, by nature, focus too much on impressions and senitmentality – this is obviously is a subjective mental process. The trouble with that is that it sticks longer than it should – and it’s not healthy. Noynoy’s hype is a perfect example of this. Pound for pound, he’s the least qualified, yet people still choose him. Imagine that, purposely choosing someone who you know is inferior (as far as capabilities/qualifications are concerned) simply because of the sentiment that he is “a good man.”

Now the reason why I don’t think that’s a wise barometer to use when choosing leaders is because we make it a personal affair – when it really should not be. It’s well and good if you can relate to your leader in a personal level – but the reality is that all societies are [too] diverse, that you really need some amount of “disconnect” to be able to govern properly. This means your leader should be able to enforce what people need… not what they want. And we all know that everyone is deciding on the level of personal wants.

We all (myself included) want a leader that is kind and gentle – but to be so stubborn as to have that requirement as a non-negotiable – that you’d risk electing someone who is most likely ineffective over someone who is proven to be more effective simply because the latter isn’t “kind.”

That is what I mean when I say people are too hung up on sentiment – and that is why it isn’t wise.

Being of “ideal character” doesn’t guarantee anything – it only guarantees a person is good natured (i.e. humble, etc.). It says nothing about his or her ability to solve problems. Let me give some examples.

Cory Aquino

Here’s the deal with Cory. She is benevolent, I’ll give her that. In fact, she reminds me of my Mother to be perfectly honest. But a good president? Are you friggin’ kidding me? The only reason she won is to save us from Marcos – not because she intended to fix the country – which she didn’t by the way. ³ Understandably so since she isn’t presidential material

So during that time, she was indeed the best choice despite being not-qualified. If I had lived through that time as an adult, I would definitely have voted for her simply because we had no other alternatives. Cory was the solution to Marcos – not the country’s problem as a whole. People often fail to make that distinction.

Fortunately, we aren’t in such a desperate situation. We aren’t trying to “oust” someone and just need anyone to replace them. In fact, I dare say that rarely do we get the chance to have people running who can make a difference. And yet we stick to our impressionable ways of choosing leaders.

Can’t people see how “being good” isn’t enough when we need results!? Can’t people see that choosing a less capable leader simply because they’re good-natured doesn’t work!? Didn’t work before with Cory, didn’t work with Obama in the US… it simply doesn’t work, goddamnit! When will we realize this!?

And it circles back Gordon’s claims of people “not thinking.” Which really means “thinking more with your heart rather than your head.” and we are constantly falling into a societal rut because of it!

Barrack Obama

Barack Obama was the epitome of hope, character, and humility and yet he’s not following through with his promises. While people could be disappointed in the oh-well-I-thought-it-was-a-good-idea-but-turned-out-it-wasn’t context, but we fail to realize the real-world implications – that people are still suffering, losing their jobs, the economy’s tanking, etc.

Take note, to this day, there’s no question about Barack being a “good person” (at least compared to McCain) – but he’s turned out to be an ineffective leader. And choosing someone who had given us the impression to be capable – based on “character” – now reveals itself to come at a terrible price.

Bill Clinton

Now lets look at Bill Clinton. In the past years, the US was strongest during his tenure… So take your Obama, Bush, etc. And compare them to Bill; Bill is undoubtedly the better leader given what he has done for the country.

And yet, people ousted him because of a matter that really is neither here nor there when it comes to fixing the country. Make no mistake, the US slipped when Bill was kicked out. People had their “sentimental retribution” – but at what expense? The whole country suffered because of it.

Don’t get me wrong, I do prefer that our leaders are “morally upright” as well – I mean who wouldn’t right? It’s always good to start with an “ideal” – but we really should learn when to start thinking out of these “mental boxes” we have made for ourselves. To me, I put more stock in what a person/leader can do. The only time I will find the issue of “morality” worth investigating is if it negatively affects their capacity to do their jobs (i.e. corruption, etc.)

Simply put, Bill may have been indulging in other personal matters, but that didn’t change that he was good at what he did ⁴ Managing the country, that is, get your heads out of the gutter!. People can’t even argue that “if you can’t handle your family, then you can’t handle the country” – that’s the most naive thing I’ve ever heard. Bill was already managing the country just fine even when he stuck his dick into Lewinsky’s mouth – so that argument is moot.

So there you have it; The poster-boy of “goodness” failed to get anything done. Whereas the real effective one just happened to be “immoral” – and people consistently choose the former over the latter – at the expense of the economy, jobs, etc. Because of silly narrow-minded, subjective, sentimentality.

Tiger Woods

I thought I’d just throw this in for the heck of it.

You watch Tiger Woods not because he’s a good or bad person, you watch him because he’s a good golfer. You like golf -> you watch people play golf -> you watch Tiger play golf (because he’s the the Michael Jordan of golf). Should be a fairly simple and uncomplicated mental process right?

While his issue is indeed unfortunate, that never made him any less capable as being the best golfer out there. And again, people are treating the issue like its such a personal thing when it shouldn’t be. If there’s an issue, it’s between him and his wife – not him and the country. He’s being paid to play golf well – not to make sure he sticks his dick inside his wife’s vagina.

Shallow or Narrow?

I’m pretty sure that people are thinking that I’m must be admitting Gordon has such a bad character to defend him in such a way – which couldn’t be further from the truth. And to think that also proves my point on how misguided people can get when they rely too much on “sentiments” and “impressions” (like I said, it indeed is unwise)

Yes, he may be self-assured… arrogant even. But that doesn’t mean he has less integrity because of it ⁵ Nor does it suggest he’ll be a Marcos because of it People fail to realize that the results of the things he does (and has done) are actually the opposite of his “unfortunate” temperament. That is to say that you may think he thinks of us as “lesser beings” – and yet his projects are still for our benefit. Now why is that?

Why is he active in the Red Cross when he’s clearly an asshole right? Why he’s letting go of his senate post to prove his resolve in fixing our nation if you think he’s got the tendency of being a tyrant ⁶ Usually those guys play it safe, like Marcos did Why did he bother rescuing hostages when he thinks all of us are idiots anyways? Why would anyone, who seems to have so little respect for us, be willing to sacrifice so much for us? Just let that thought simmer in your brains – and hopefully, you’ll see him the way his supporters see him. There are so many good things he has done that doesn’t “sync” with his temperament if we were to believe others’ claims that he is nothing more than an arrogant prick.

If this arrogant prick can get things done, if this arrogant prick can bring our country to its former glory. Then by all means! Because believe it or not, you can be a prick and still do great things for others – just look at Sherlock Holmes, or Gregory house. Or if you want a real-world examples try Sir Winston Churchill, Larry Ellison (Oracle), and the grand master douchebag of them all: Steve Jobs. ⁷ Ok so maybe Winston Churchill was still the bigger douchebag

On Discrediting Gordon’s accomplishments

People talk about how much of Olongapo is still in poverty. And that may be true… does that mean he’s any less capable?

Wayne Gretzky said “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” Even if Gordon hasn’t “fixed” Olongapo completely, he still “took the shot(s)” in trying to “fix” it – there still is progress, no matter how little (and I’m already downplaying it to ridiculous levels at this point). How about your candidate? What has he/she done? Compared to Gordon, its not unreasonable to say that they have done absolutely nothing relatively speaking. So to call him out on not fixing his “business” completely – when your candidate doesn’t even have a business to start with is kind of strange. If you want that argument to stick… then first have your man do something similar then we could re-evaluate your claims.

Or lets take the argument that “Subic is not the Philippines” – that the scope and nature of the two “endeavors” are too different for Gordon to handle. Is translating the succcess of Subic to the Philippines indeed impossible? I don’t think so, but perhaps. Is assuming all of Gordon’s accomplishments are not applicable to the Philippines? I disagree, but sure, lets say it may indeed be that way. But speculating gets us nowhere.

The thing is, I could easily throw that argument back at whoever dished it out – and my argument would have more weight; because when all is said and done, Gordon would still be the candidate that will have something tangible to show for it – and he didn’t even need to be president to do it – what more if he was.

Face it, even if we assume that all three “could never anticipate” the gravity of the post they are applying for – it’s still clear who of the three has the best chance of not buckling down under pressure by the sheer amount of crises he has had to deal with – regardless if it’s applicable to the country as a whole or not.

So I ask you this: If Gordon’s accomplishments doesn’t convince you he can turn this country around – what makes you think YOUR candidate’s LACK OF THEM will? You mention that Gordon’s credentials are still inadmissible as qualifications to be the best man for the job… but your man, who has done nothing compared to him, could!? We both have to admit how utterly ridiculous that sounds right?

Gordon’s “policies” may not be popular to some people – but respect the fact that he tries (and even succeeds in some cases) – which is more than I can say for the others.

Handling the truth

I’ve said a lot already at this point… my frustrations are rather similar to Gordon’s. Can you blame us if we think that people are not “thinking” when they’re voting for people like Noynoy? I’ve just broken down a considerable amount of objective weights one should be using in picking a candidate – and no matter how hard I try to justify Noynoy’s capabilities, when pitted against the other two, it just simply doesn’t make logical sense to choose him. The ONLY thing going for Noynoy is his “humility” ⁸ And honestly, if it’s about beign “kind” Gibo is also kind, so technically if a person was truly both objective and values “humility” – they should be voting for Gibo – otherwise he simply is inferior to both Gibo and Gordon on most if not all counts that should matter.

Claiming to choose Noynoy, on the grounds of objectivity (aside from the exception I stated earlier on) is an oxymoron. He’s the least capable of the three no matter how you want to slice it, and it’s frustrating that people celebrate choosing that sort of a leader. It’s Cory all over again.

Synthesis

The truth is, humans in general have a lousy way of gauging what’s better for their country because they’re too hung up on analyzing things on a personal level. We really should stop doing that and admit that our leaders should govern us the way we need to be governed – not how we want or prefer to be.

Like I said earlier, this isn’t just like choosing friends where you can afford to choose solely by impression or subjective preference, because damaged friendships can be re-established EASILY for as long as both parties are willing to work on it. Besides, at the very worst, you won’t be friends – you’ll move on, and find other friends.

But poverty? Corruption? An economic depression? Loss of jobs? Or any of the other “implications” in choosing a less capable leader simply because he seems like a good man? Not so easy! (In my sing-songy voice) This isn’t the time to be “experimenting.”

With strained personal relationships, time can heal all wounds. We can be as careful as we want, take as much time as we want, etc.

We do not have that luxury when managing nations. Time is our enemy in that sense. Time will increase inflation (if the economy is not addressed as quickly as possible), time increases poverty (if the population, among other things, is not kept in check), time will allow corruption to fester, entrench itself, plan, and plot, and execute – if not dealt with aggressively.

AND, unlike Jesus Christ – there will be no 2 thousand year “grace period” for a concept to sink in and have people believe and finally act on it. Either we do this as soon as we can, or just continue down the downward spiral – until we are beyond saving.

What we need is immediate, aggressive change – and more importantly, the enforcement of those changes. I dare say that just being a “good” person will not cut it. What you need is a headstrong, driven, decided person who’s not afraid to make enemies if need be – for as long as the job gets done.

I choose Gordon because he is clearly the best choice. Unlike the others, what Gordon brings to the table is not a matter of speculation – he’s already proven to walk the talk.

I choose Gordon not because Gibo might be Arroyo’s dog. I’m choosing him not because Noynoy might be an empty promise. I’m not even choosing Gordon because I noticed that he thinks like I do (that’s just a pleasant coincidence).

I’m choosing Gordon simply because my candidate has done and can do more than whatever your candidates put together can muster. And I think we’ve had enough empty promises thrown our way by our “leaders” over the years… why not try picking a leader that will actually do something about it?