After eight years of one of the most benighted administrations in U.S. history we are finally on the cusp of ridding ourselves of an enormous impediment: a "leadership," that has no idea what the word means. Initially, I was naive enough to hope that the mere transfer of power from one administration to a future one would solve at least half of the problems.

Depressingly, I no longer believe that. Instead, I have slowly reached the conclusion that the failure in leadership is a collective problem, shared throughout the United States. I'm certain that it would be unpopular to say this. It would not get me elected. Fortunately, I do not find myself in that position. Let me be even more blunt: sometime between the end of the Cold War and 2008, America forgot how to lead. Instead, we've conflated power and leadership. The two are hardly synonymous, as we have learned the hard way: being the world's only superpower does not secure you a leadership role. In contrast, leadership generates power, even - and especially - in areas where it did not even exist before.

This is a lesson that Americans took to heart for the last half of the 20th century. We took a leadership role in the creation of international institutions that, to paraphrase Dag Hammarskjold, "prevented hell on earth." We made scientific, technological, agricultural, and engineering leaps that paved the way for the 21st century, and an improved lot in life for billions around the world.

We funded things like the space program. We helped build and sustain the UN. As a society, across industry, the military, sciences, and politics, we invested in advancement and in the future. I hardly believe it was idyllic - the threat of nuclear war loomed large, and there were many mis-steps and some outright abuses along the way. But, the charted course was one of progress, and if not magnanimity, than at least of enlightened, and generally inclusive, self-interest, when weighed against the annals of human history.

Our leadership, and a proven track record of "getting things done," generated wide ranging and far reaching power. This leadership was anchored by a faith in humanity's ability to change things for the better. We recognized, intuitively if not explicitly, that the fate of our nation and its people was inextricably bound to those worldwide. And we exercised our power, however imperfectly, largely with that consideration in mind.

Ironically, Americans have begun abnegating their leadership roles, even as increasing connectivity ensures that almost all of our problems are collectively shared and require increasingly interdependent solutions. What is a problem for a Bolivian farmer is, in some way, a problem for us. Do you believe that there are too many people on the planet? Then your primary issue should be educating women worldwide - in places where women receive strong educations, birthrate declines dramatically, and often dips below replacement rates. Biofuels are the solution to the fossil fuel problem...

At least until poor nations around the world go hungry.

Somewhere along the way, we began using our power selfishly, as distinct from in our previous, collectively self-interested way. Detroit rails against increased mileage and emission standards. Imagine what would happen if they embraced them? I posit that American auto makers would become industry leaders in clean, efficient cars within a decade or less. We refuse to pull together a comprehensive energy policy or emissions standards, and often it is because "it doesn't matter what we do if China doesn't follow through."

Leadership requires us to do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do! Because getting out ahead, just as in the space race, will generate new discoveries, new technologies that may improve the lot for everyone, and generate entirely new market sectors and opportunities - new places for U.S. power to arise. The United States is still a bastion of innovation and opportunity, and will be for many years - these types of things are absolutely achievable, but only if we opt to lead.

But lately, we've just been scared. We protect a dying manufacturing industry addicted to the old ways, instead of creating space and pressure for changes that could open up vibrant new sectors. We try to solve immigration problems - built on our revered law of "supply and demand," NOT by trying to help Mexico improve itself, but by building a fence - and the Maginot Line worked SO well for the French. We decry NAFTA, although evidence suggests it increases economic growth - it's just in new or different market sectors. This is power exercised in selfish ways, not in self-interested ways. When did the world become zero-sum?

When used selfishly, power is a finite commodity that can be exhausted. When used to lead, it generates more power. Leadership and selfishness are mutually exclusive, and somehow, some way, we need to remember that.