One election; two candidates.
Both candidates did a very nice job attacking one another viciously for months and creating gross caricatures of each other's positions. By the end of the election Obama became a a misguided, big government, tax-and-spend socialist from another planet and Romney became an out of touch plutocrat who would drive your dear old momma out into the street with his nefarious plans for social security.
Unfortunately, neither candidate demonstrated the least bit of interest in discussing the really, really big issues facing us as a nation and as a planet. These big issues, I believe, include global warming, immigration policy, the corrupting influence of corporate money on the political system, the proliferation of assault weapons on our streets, and the failure of our educational system to adequately prepare students to excel in an increasingly competitive world. There are other significant issues confronting us, certainly, but these are the ones that both Obama and Romney chose to ignore during the entire course of the election.
This to me represents a failure of leadership on the part of both candidates for President. I know exactly why they ran from addressing these kinds of issues -- because they're very contentious and also incredibly difficult to solve. But isn't that precisely what a real leader is supposed to do: solve difficult problems? And, if the country doesn't care about these issues or doesn't understand just how important these issues are, doesn't a real leader get out there and use the bully pulpit to educate and mobilize his fellow citizens?
That's precisely what my own leadership role model, Franklin Roosevelt, did during both the Depression and World War II. He saw there were problems facing the nation (millions of people out of work and fascism on the rise), understood what needed to be done to solve these problems (stimulate the economy through public works and mobilize the country for war) and then used his fireside chats to get the nation behind him. And the nation did get behind him in the end. The end result was that we got out of the Depression, defeated the forces of fascism, and became the economic and political superpower of the entire world. The philosopher Plato, in the Republic, argued that a real leader is one who has an understanding of the Good and then is trained to carry that good out for the betterment of the society. That's exactly what Franklin Roosevelt did in the 1930s and 40s and that's precisely what our leaders today seem unable to do.
But perhaps I don't fully understand what a leader really is and maybe the old paradigms of leadership no longer apply in a world that is so complex and fragmented.
So what is a leader anyway? Why do you think we seem to have so few real leaders guiding us today? And what do you think the solution to the problem might be?
A leader should be a courageous individual who has a unique vision that he or she feels would be beneficial for others to believe in as well. I say "should" because many people who are considered leaders today do not fit the criteria. Being a leader requires sticking with your convictions and acting in a manner that truly reflects them. The problem with leaders today is that people do not require them to be real leaders. If a politician lies, people don't bat an eye. If a priest is involved in a sexual scandal, people roll their eyes and move on with their days. People don't expect leaders to have strong convictions or any moral superiority, therefore, why should our leaders strive for this? Most people who are considered leaders in the present day do the bare minimum to satisfy the several stupid people who will go along with what they say, having done their research or not, and that's it. The intelligent people are then stuck with an incompetent or shameful excuse for leader because they are the minority.
ReplyDeleteI believe the solution for this is for people to start requiring our leaders to actually BE leaders. Instead of choosing an authority on good looks or charm, how about asking tough questions and really listening to their answers? But this is not likely, because that would require both the followers and leaders to raise their standards and actually think about what a person actually stands for. A leader becomes a leader because the people support them; a leader cannot only lead themselves. I hope the population somehow smartens up, and takes the time to ask themselves what they should be expecting from any person who they are placing in a leadership position, rather than just taking whatever they get.
April Troiano
Why should a leader always be courageous? A leader can be reserved in his/her actions. Courageous means to be brave, to be bold, to be valiant. What if a leader is too bold? Do they let their emotions go before them rather than reason? If a leader always sticks to their convictions without the possibility of change, should the people follow their leader if he/she makes a mistake? Politicians lie all the time. People do care what goes on in our society. We the people what a leader that will be honest and non-deceptive.
DeleteIn regard to the priest scandal, there's more to rolling your eyes. Emotions play a crucial role in this kind of situation. Parents don't want their children to become victims of abuse and molestation. Leaders should have a sense of moral reason during their term(s). Leaders should strive to live by virtues, because virtues shape our character development. People are not stupid, they are simply not informed of current issues. The leaders in our world have a lot on their minds, and cannot always satisfy the needs of everyone. A leader becomes a leader because he/she gains the trust of the people, not just because the people support him/her. Again, the people are not stupid; it's not a matter of smartening up,they are not fully aware of the issues going on.
A leader is a person who has the confidence to truly achieve what the goal at hand is and is also not afraid to fail. The leader must address issues that are truly important and also must realize who he/she is as a person before trying to lead the masses. So in other words he/she should be confident; however, he/she must also know his/her limitations and play to his/her strengths. If the leader does not have enough confidence in his own ability then we may see another leader like Carter was. Leadership is in an essence also the ability to present the idea and rally up supporters through his charismatic speeches-such as military leader George Washington (for your information my favorite leader of all time),or even Abraham Lincoln whom were also two of the best presidents that this country has ever seen.
ReplyDeleteThe problem that we as Americans face today is that the leadership has definitely dwindled because most people are waiting for their "George Washington" to be the leader of men for the cause of righteousness. With that in mind people are being too overcautious and afraid to take any risks and not allow for mistakes to occur. Did Washington have doubts that his army could not beat the British? Did Steve Jobs have doubts about how apple would do after his passing? Of course they did, and they made a plan for what is to happen if something fails. Washington called upon his soldiers to be a band of brothers and be the marksmen that he know that they were as well as have an ace up his sleeve with a French ally. Jobs made sure that he would have a successor that he trusted to be the leader and one who was not afraid to make mistakes. People are also unwilling to be the one in charge and being the "responsible one" of the group.
What we need to do is to take chances and make mistakes or else it shows that we do not have confidence in ourselves. Without that self confidence we would always doubt our abilities and thus not be as successful as we should be. With that in mind we also must figure out our strengths and weaknesses in ourselves and use it to our advantages, and focus on our weaknesses in order to find ourselves in the process. WE the people of the 21st century have to wake up and once again prove to ourselves that we are still the innovative, problem solving, reliable people that we know that we can be. Once we are able to do that we are then able to effectively become leaders once again. If we as people do not fix the weaknesses that hinder our confidence then we do not deserve to be in a leadership role.
Don't you think every leader has anxiety over achieving every goal? You need more evidence to argue against Carter. All leaders should demonstrate the importance of equality. If George Washington is your favorite leader of all time, does that mean you support slavery? Keep in mind that Washington owned slaves. If you're waiting for your "George Washington" to lead, then your in favor of racial discrimination.
DeleteYour last statement in paragraph two needs to be elaborated. Define "responsible." You say in paragraph two that people must not be afraid to make mistakes while in paragraph three you say we should make mistakes. It is perfectly normal for one to doubt their abilities with or without confidence. You don't have to be a leader to present your ideas and rally up supporters.
In my opinion, a successful leader needs to come equip with a variety of skills and a strong moral awareness. It is imperative that a good leader has integrity. He needs to be honest and upfront with his followers. However, most leaders today are quite the opposite. The main problem with today’s political leaders, in my opinion, is their blatant deceitfulness that they proclaim. As a nation, we are constantly lied to and manipulated. It seems as if the country as whole has become numb to our political leaders deceit. It seemingly has become an accepted reality that politicians can not and should not be trusted, and because of this our current leaders are not held responsible for their actions. Another problem with today’s leaders is they are not always empathetic. They cannot always successfully connect with their people. If a leader cannot understand how his people feel and what they need, how can he continue to move society forward in the right direction? Finally, I think a leader needs to be constantly growing and learning. Most political leaders are stubborn and narrow minded on controversial issues. As times change a good leader needs to be changing as well. I think as time goes on we will see more and more politicians that are more flexible in their views.
ReplyDeleteSolving the problem of weak leadership is multifaceted. I think it starts with us, the people who elect these feeble and transparent leaders. We need to hold politicians accountable for their actions by questioning their decisions. I believe we need to start with local governments and work our way up the political ladder. Also, I think that our current leaders need to start coming together to ensure the success of our country, and they need to be more proactive in solving major issues in our country such as the fiscal cliff. Lastly, our leaders of tomorrow need to be developed in a way where they are constantly being challenged to innovate, inspire, and be an honest person.
What do you mean by the terms moral awareness? The KKK are Morally aware, just to a negative end: they are racists. However to argue the inclusion of this term in perhaps a more pertinent way it could be said that moral awareness is just an empty term taken advantage of by crafty and dishonest politicians who misuse the common, and positive, conception of the term for their own ends. They may claim, either directly or in a roundabout way, that they posses this quality and they can be quite good at this deception, how then can voters distinguish the true from the false? Let it be taken though that the public can see through this and a potential leader who holds tight this attribute is on the ticket, does it follow then that one, he will be elected and two and most importantly that his views are those which are best for the people whom he is hoping to lead? To the first point of inquire, it does not follow he will be elected, for say he is a democrat in a heavily republican district, or vice versa, most people will just vote down their party line. No quality will ever ensure a candidate will be elected, given I can change where they run and whom they run against. As to the second point, morals have been made to have so wide meaning they have almost no meaning here as they can be made to mean too much, so moral, which can mean mere beliefs about helping people, biblical unchanging beliefs helping people, or nere beliefs regarding people etc. and those beliefs can be anything, they are not fixed. It could be said a moral awareness is letting people help themselves or the opposite giving them a handout to help them. Just because the leader has the quality of firmness in his beliefs about helping people, my rough approximation of the definition of moral, those beliefs are not in any way concrete, saying a leader should have them is saying a leader should have one of many diametrically opposed views, and should be either firm or entirely unwavering on them. I see no reason why a leader needs such views as they will not necessarily help them in the election process nor will they necessarily aid, and in fact it might be a great detriment, to the people they lead, you should be more specific about that term instead of just mentioning it in passing as though it is self-evident. You should take a critical look at the other terms in your first paragraph and see if you can find fault and contradiction with them, remember confusion, as Socrates said, is the first step is philosophy.
DeleteYou mention the public in your second paragraph and that they elect such poor leaders, I will agree with you on that, as will 48 percent of voters in the last election. That is of great interest. Who decides that a leader is poor as opposed to great? Many people look upon FDR as a very poor leader, he implemented many entitlement programs as part of the new deal which many claim did very little to get us out of the Great Depression, in fact some claim it hindered process that would have taken place without it if capitalism was left to correct itself for as any economist will tell you recessions and depressions are a part of life in a healthy economy , while some on the left claim it persevered the worst forms of capitalism, true or not the main point is the fact the fact that it is in dispute as to if it helped and as to if his “moral awareness” if you will was good for the country or not. Also in the 1930s when the Supreme Court was knocking down his New Deal proposals on the grounds of the Commerce Clause he threatened to add justices to the court, to essentially stack the court in his favor, it was only when one justice switched sides (the switch in time that saved nine) and his New Deal was put into place that he abandoned this idea. It was the war, these people claim, that got us out of the Great Depression, a war which FDR refused to enter until December 8 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor, were we to enter earlier perhaps we, at the cost of American lives granted, could have saved perhaps a million or so Jews from being killed by the Nazis. This man is however considered a great leader because of the ideas he held, the ends and not the means. This is a mistake many people make, and one that you address. We need honest leaders, ones who respect the means, not merely the ends. We need, as you quite correctly state honest leaders for tomorrow, and I hope you got the point, that you illustrate, that we don’t want to trade one president, who acts without regard for just means merely because we like their ends, for another. One last point about both sides working together, and this point is a good one both sides should show more interest in helping the country than pandering to their side, however it could be said that they are sticking to their position so this is a tough point to find a clear solution to, so a single sentence is insufficient to try and solidify a solution to the problem. Still all in all, a well written second paragraph.
DeleteMark
Not all people are born to be leaders, but those who are must have a vision and way to communicate this message to others. The initiative of a leader is just as important as the vision itself. Leaders must challenge the status quo and inspire others to join them on their road to fulfilling a vision. This vision may be the ability to see possibilities that are not so clear to others, while creating an image for the future. Visions, whether good or bad, without action will remain just dreams waiting to be cultivated.
ReplyDeleteThis is the main problem I see today. Candidates, like Obama and Romney, have no problem talking about solutions, but rather the problem lies in the lack of action. FDR saw the problems and was not afraid to implement solutions. Whether it be the Great Depression with the New Deal Programs or the courage to fight the evil- axis powers of Japan and Europe, he showed the courage to make decisions. In today’s society, people are too afraid to make decisions, in fear that they will lose likability, fame, etc. Politicians would rather play both sides of the isle and do nothing in a stalemate, just to retain their position of power. We need a leader who is not going to be intimidated by political parties, but rather has the balls to make tough decisions for the well being of the country. No more BS between political parties, we need a leader who will get this country back on track to being the greatest nation on the planet.
-PL
I agree with you first point not all men have what it takes to be a leader but surely it takes more than what you have listed. It most certainly takes initiative but that is not the be all and end all, what of intelligence, all men have dreams of what is best but give me two men and I will give you contradictory dreams as to what is best. Suppose both of these men have initiative they may well become leaders but is this all we look for, it would seem that is what we have now. Is what we have now as good as we can hope for? I would like to imagine not. Perhaps you should expand as to what else is needed by a leader. You say that the initiative equals the worth of the vision, this cannot be said to be true. It is true that without the former the latter is worthless but what you have not factored in how common each is, let me go a step further and ask how common a great vision is? Quite rare, where as initiative is common enough and with a working initiative one with a great vision can go far, whereas one with a mundane vision even with a great initiative can do little without great luck as well and even if he does achieve his vision what does he do for people? Very little. Perhaps I speak and err, feel free to pose a response against what I say if you have insight I lack.
DeleteThe second paragraph, FDR erred greatly, if I may be so bold, at least in what he planned to do in many circumstances. He gave no heed to the means when he went to implement the New Deal, in the early 1930s when the New Deal was being shot down by the Supreme Court due to the Commerce Clause by a vote of 5-4 FDR had planned to forgo over 150 years of precedent by stacking the court. That is to say adding new, and liberal, members to the court, which had been set as nine since the days of George Washington’s farewell address, so that he would win when they voted, essentially so that he would have free reign to do whatever he wanted. To forgo the means just to achieve your ends is a slippery slope. To set such bad precedent for the next president, who may hold different views than you, to do the same is just steps away from dictatorship. Big steps mind you, but going closer to that direction is not a good thing for what stops the next man in office from just stacking the court again and completely undoing everything FDR put in place? The means must be respected; the Founding Fathers knew this and put the Constitutions in place for that very reason. What you suggest, I suggest you would not suggest if you disagreed with the polices that the next president put in place, still there is merit in what you say. The president should not be bullied by his constituents into a state of inaction as we saw in Obama’s first terms; he had a super-majority and got little to nothing done. However it is a subtle dance which must be played and rules which must be followed. Is this dance to constricting, perhaps yet have we any choice but to play it or risk the possible outcome of letting people forgo means for ends? It is something to think about, again perhaps I err. What you have written, and please forgive my somewhat didactic response is done on a surface level, dig deeper into the issues, and please if you have any response or critique to what I have written I welcome a response.
Mark
I believe that sometimes it’s hard to exactly say what a leader is because that might depend on what a leader is to you, as an individual. That being said there are certainly a specific set of traits that each and every true leader should have. During class, we said that some of the main ones were the ability to take risks, be courageous, stay firm in your beliefs, be compassionate, understand the people you are supposed to be leading, and many others. In my opinion, I believe that these traits ring true with definition of leader. In order to be considered one, you should stand behind your beliefs even when there are numerous people against you. That being said, you can’t be completely inflexible because then you lose a lot of people who could have possibly been one of your followers.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main problems with Americans, in particular, is that we don’t want to follow someone who doesn’t say exactly what we want to hear. This is, perhaps, one of the biggest reasons we don’t have many true leaders in our society. Everyone who is involved in politics, especially the President, has to do their best to appeal to everyone’s mindset and that is impossible to do. Elections turn more into popularity contests, because the American people only vote for those who say the right things. For example, no candidate really touches upon immigration issues, global warming, monetary political corruption, etc. because those are volatile subjects, and if you say the wrong things you could really anger a lot of people (who in turn will not vote for you).
Unfortunately, the only real solution to this problem is finding a candidate who isn’t afraid to stick by their beliefs, but at the same time be willing to compromise with the other parties. That being said you can’t take it too far and that’s where I believe Obama hurt his first term. The first 18 months or so were basically him trying to get along with everyone and as a true leader; you have to realize that that just is not possible. The challenge is getting them to really understand your point and also make sure that you understand there’s. As a country we need a leader who is going to unite us, not choose a side and let the other fight to get their way. We are supposed to be one of the best countries in world, yet in many ways we are childish in our view points and have no one to say enough is enough.
-Darian J
Darian, let me first begin by applauding your argumentative writing. Although some of your thoughts make valid points, I do have concessions regarding some of them. In general a leader is a completely subjective idea, which you clearly stated. However, there may or may not be universal traits that all leaders share. Who ever said that leaders must be brave, courageous, or compassionate. Some of the greatest leaders throughout history lead with fear and the force of iron. Some lead with cowardice politics that please all. The character of a true leader should not be based on universal traits that they all share, but on the society in which they live. Take for example the leadership of Ancient Sparta. In no way, shape, or form was the leadership a configuration of compassion and understanding. However, they did lead their nations/states to great success. Although I agree that the idea of a leader varies from culture to culture, those 'main traits' should also vary.
DeleteI do like the way you supported the argument for maintaining leadership through pleasing others and compromising and that someone is needed to say enough. It is no secret that the politicians in this country vie for votes rather than change. Your objection to the American people is valid to an extent. Not only do we not want to follow those who do not please our ears, we don't want to make hard choices. The people, the majority of people in this country, are herds following parties and people like cows following the ass end of the cow in front of them. A true leader needs a true friend, or voter. These voters and these "Americans" need to be aware of the policies, aware of the candidate, and aware of what they want. America needs the informed citizen, not the majority voter.
No where in the presidential doctrine does it say they must please everyone. They must do what is best for this country and its people whether it pisses people off or not, which you did state. However, I fear that your wish for a candidate who "will stick their neck out" will find no support to fall on. Why? Because this country is driven not by leaders, but by greenbacks, and until that changes, the "leaders" will fight for votes rather than change and being a morally good leader who makes change for the better, shall fall to the waist side. It is not their fault however....it is ours, we voted for them.
I believe a leader is someone who has a vision. This vision may pertain to something no one ever has, or wants to tackle. What separates leaders from everyone else is that anyone can see that there’s a problem with something, but it takes a true leader to not only identify, but fix the problem. Leaders may see an issue or a problem that needs fixing and they are the only one that has the courage and/or drive to deal with and fix the issue. Leaders have clear goals in mind that they fully intend and will to anything to accomplish. Another quality of a leader is having integrity, and being able to prove that to their employees. Having integrity will not mean anything if the employees don’t see it or believe it. One more quality of a leader is being an overall positive person. A real leader will not waste time on negative reinforcement, but rather positive reinforcement, encouraging their people to do well.
ReplyDeleteI think the main reason we have so few real leaders today is because of money. I truly believe that the majority of today’s “leaders” are driven by wealth. There is a reason why private businesses and organizations donate money to candidate’s campaign funds. This is because they expect the candidate to side with their beliefs and take the same standpoint as them. The more money they give, the more of a push the candidate gives their issue. Also, once elected, they continue to receive “funding” from these organizations to drive their causes. So obviously, the lack of ethics of these representatives allows them to make decisions based on the money they’re receiving from these organizations. This is a big problem because instead of looking at the real issues that the people they represent are facing, and dealing with these issues, they focus on things they’re being paid to focus on.
-Nicole Saviolis
I uh i tthinks a leeder should be a persun or peopel or, yea peopel who are good, the um the nicest, and who can look into peopels's eyes and say, "hay you.. yea you, im the leeder not you. And since because im the leeder: I am the good and nicest persun of all the leeders here. bow down to me everyone. I am the best. the best in well in the world and the unaverse and in the in the world. nikoal savyolas out
ReplyDeleteA leader is someone who has the ability to guide and direct a group of people. A leader should have the ability to stick to their beliefs while still having support from his or her subordinates. To get support I think it is important for leaders to have good communication skills because even if people don’t agree with what you are saying they will be more willing to having an open mind . We seem to have so few real leaders guiding us today because our “leaders” are more interested in getting everyone’s approval than they are in really making changes in our world. Because we are currently faced with a lot of problems I think now, more than ever, our leaders should team up and work together instead of worrying about themselves as individuals.
ReplyDeleteThe focus on political parties adds to the lack of good leadership because leaders aren’t willing to put aside their differences for the betterment of society. Instead they focus on pleasing the members of their party rather than solving the real issues. The solution to the problem might be to start changing the types of leaders we chose and develop leadership programs for kids at a young age to start preparing them for the future ahead. I think that America has such diversity yet the same type of people are the top elite that lead our country. If we get rid of the stereotypes of what a leader should be then maybe leaders will emerge with new ideas and ways of thinking.
What I find interesting about your argument is that you promote a leader who is able to stick to his beliefs and guide people instead of merely appealing to pressure from his party members, but you don't specify what sort of beliefs such a leader should hold. There have been leaders (with pains of sounding cliche) such as Hitler, who stuck to his beliefs and had outstanding communication skills that allowed him to guide Germany through a dark time and make real changes in the world. I leave it up to you to place value on his actions, but the point is, you should ask yourself what exactly you want Your leader to believe.
DeleteThe problem may arise that raising leaders with merely the traits you mentioned does nothing to combat moral corruption. One can be an excellent leader and bring about great destruction. Particularly one who is not catering to the wants of other politicians. And if he has convictions which allow him to strive with such determination he may not listen to the people either.
-Daniel Woods
A leader, by definition is “one who leads, guides, or is in command of others,” while the characteristic of leadership is identified as “the capacity or ability to lead”. The significant distinction between the two is that leadership is the potential one may have to lead, however this mere competence to lead does not warrant one a leader. A very important aspect in becoming a leader lies within devising a unique plan for the future: creating a vision. The personal insight one has in developing their vision aids in proficiently separating those who can and cannot lead. And to divulge even further, an effective leader is one who not only develops his/her vision but acts upon it with confidence and the willingness to fail, as failing is the only way to understand your weaknesses.
ReplyDeleteIn our society, there are both efficient and inefficient leaders. The common opinion is to bash these inefficient leaders on their inability to both make a difference and do it in a positive and motivational way. My only gripe with the leadership characteristics of the typical leader in our day and age is his/her inability to have a unique opinion, campaign it, and stay true to it. However, the leaders themselves cannot be blamed, as the flaw lies within our system of choosing leaders (especially politicians in that matter). In all truthfulness nobody will be elected for any position by being true and honest to their own opinion. So I blame our system of choosing leaders, as it has caused said leaders to adapt into people they aren’t and essentially creating inefficient.
-Christian Romanelli
You seem to have grasped the essential problem with our political system quite well. It is indeed pointless to blame the politicians for their faults for they are a reflection of their sponsors, not a reflection of the true desires of an effective leader as you described.
DeleteOn the other hand, your pessimism about the future may be unwarranted. Considering the looming dangers on the horizon such as the effects of climate change, a leader who is true and honest to taking counteractive measures may be able to succeed.
-Daniel Woods
A leader is a person who has the ability to motivate and inspire others; somebody that faces problems head on rather than cower and let others deal with it. Great leaders make the tough decisions, assuming it's for the better of the people, even though presently, it may not be a popular choice. A characteristic of a great leader is the ability to communicate his message so others can understand and follow. A leader like Abraham Lincoln was not that popular when he was in office because he did make the tough decisions and didn't care how he was perceived. He knew the decisions he was making was right for the country and he stuck with it to bring an end to the most deadly war in American History.
ReplyDeleteWe see so few good leaders guiding us because they are not focused on leading. They are focused more on themselves and their careers rather than making the country better. Those voted into office are often puppets for the groups that gave them money to win the election. I think the problem is the way groups can donate such high amounts to a campaign. These groups can donate unlimited amounts of money and expect it to be repaid in favorable laws and policies for the group. I also think with the 24 hour media cycle, people focus more on trivial things like physical attributes while they should be focused on the achievements accomplished for the betterment if the country.
-Matt H
You really brought out a lot of really excellent and relevant points.It is very true that it seems today that our leaders find it very hard to take a side on an issue and to work hard for it and to stick with it to the end. We learned alot about president Obama and his ideas on health care reforms but now what?Just how important is this issue or even other issues to us ...we should not just let them back down from an idea we like we can get involved write letters to our governor and mayor and other elected officials and let them know how important the issues are to us even if it seems that they have backed down or are MIA because the issue is no longer popular.we have a voice and we need to use it . Funds to help in campaigning are important they help make sure that issues are heard but you are right there should be some type of oversight put into place as far as how much a group is allowed to donate valerie
DeleteThroughout the world, there are various types of leaders. In general, a leader is someone who is able to make people believe in what they want and do what they need to do. Leaders have a vision that they want to accomplish and they are able to have the people around them help achieve their vision.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we seem to have so few real leaders guiding us today because not many people can have all of the characteristics of a good leader they may just have a couple. True leaders have charisma, motivation, planning skills, good communication skills, and they are positive. The problem today is that people are waiting for the perfect leader, but there is no such thing as perfect. There are flaws in every person and now more than ever we can see these flaws because in politics, all our leaders do is point out the bad in each other.
I don’t believe there is a solution to this problem because people are either born with the skills needed to be a good leader or they do not have the skills. The only way to fix this is to either know less about the candidates’ flaws or to only have the information about the candidates come from them, and a non-partisan fact checker so opinions are not included.
-Katie R.
A leader is someone who can see and understand two key things: the needs of the people and the needs of the world around those people. Leaders need to inspire those individuals around them and allow them to feel confortable in the fact that they can achieve their tasks. Applying this to the Presidential Election I saw a failure of leadership for both candidates. In my personal opinion I believe that problems facing our economy and our education system needed to be addressed. Instead all voters got in return were vague non-committal or not helpful answers. A leader or at least a good leader should not shy away from problems just because they are touchy topics.
ReplyDeleteThe economy was a huge focus point for this election and yet I don’t believe that I was able fully understand each politician’s plan. For example when questioned on how it would get done voters got answers like “five point plan” or “I know we can get more jobs back home”. Neither of these answers instill much faith. The politicians should have seen this as a crisis. Using the text, a crisis can be defined as a situation that could spiral out of control. That’s what happened. There was no night in shining armor standing at a podium saying “I’m going to be honest this is bad, we have a tough road ahead but this is how we are going to get there…”. The sad truth is that is all it might have taken to become President.
As a business major I am constantly reminded how fear and greed drive people. In this election fear and fear alone kept politicians from touching on the subject of education. It just seems like one of those things like raising takes that you just can’t say you will do. Personally, from where I grew up a change in education would not have made a difference. I grew up in a very affluent area, with good schools, technology and resources. But other parts of the country or even state need an upheaval in their education system. Our world is changing. Script is no longer taught in third grade; rather it has been replaced with word processing. Technology needs to be at the forefront. Students of all people need to be widely versed and educated in the new subjects and less on the old. Knowing how the French were fur traders is somewhat important but getting exposure to code some will argue is more relevant.
One can go on and on analyzing these two men, their styles and actions. But what is clear and straight forward is how they failed to act. They needed to get away from trying to grab voting groups or stimulate their base and just talk to the American people. A leader that I am entrusting with the United States should not run away from an issue because it is a difficult problem. Leaders need to attack not retreat—thus working for their people and the world around them.
~Brad F
I think it is entirely foolish to look to the election, or to look to the American political system in an attempt to find a “true leader”. While it may have been possible in the past, technology and the political structure have made it impossible for the best leader to ever be elected. Only the best politician can be elected now, and that is because we know everything about all of our candidates.
ReplyDeleteIn politics, it is foolish to be decisive. When you take a stand, there are three possible responses from the public: I like your stand, I hate your stand, or I just don’t care. When you start taking a stand on many topics, more and more people are going to start to get into the “No” category. It only takes one “no” to lose the opportunity to be a great leader, and the more people that enter a “no category” the smaller chance you have to be elected. This is why we now hear more about our candidates from slander or from an opposing party, than ever before. It’s smart to portray an opponent’s stance since there is a high likelihood that one of those stances are going to alienate the public.
Technology has killed the leader but helped the politician. To get elected, you need to be a politician. You need to get as many people on your side, and in order to do that you need to please them by bending over backwards, providing “pork”, and creating promises to secure your role. Those promises are a problem in leadership because eventually once you make enough promises they will eventualy become chains. Once you make a promise, you need to do it or attempt to do it, otherwise your integrity comes into question (which is terrible for a politician.) This is where technology kills the leader. A leader should not be bound by promises, because those promises inhibit him from taking the best course of action. But The only way to become a leader is to make these promises.
This leads to presidents focusing on pleasing the base which helped them get elected. That is entirely wrong. I was under the impression that we were looking for the President of The United States, not the leader of the majority party. Shouldn’t the president have a responsibility to all America, and not just the 51+% that voted for him? The president should represent the entire nation once he is president, and not just a single party. That is a pathetic display of American leadership, which is one reason why I can respect Obama for attempting to negotiate with the republican party back in 08. It pissed off his base, partially because it meant that he wasn’t driven by their mandate, and also because it lead to inaction during one of their greatest opportunities for “change”.
So let me get back to why technology has killed the leader. To be honest, it didn’t kill the leader, but more our perceptions of him. With the internet, we now have the opportunity to know every single detail about our leaders. Hell if you wanted you could probably find out what Obama had for breakfast yesterday. The internet makes it easy for us to see their views all at once, and we can learn everything about our leaders: how they speak, how they talk, what they have done. All of these facts are there, and all it takes to not get elected is to have multiple points you disagree on.
ReplyDeleteThe most competent leader will not get elected simply because they need to be developed beforehand. They need to know their strengths and weaknesses beforehand so they do not inhibit him from working as a leader. The only way for a good leader to be elected is to hide his true stances in order to get elected. Romney tried this in a sense, and It leads to people questioning your integrity.
The people don’t want an individual as a leader no matter how much they may ask for one. They are only willing to elect the person who has the least “no”. This is why it will be along time before we have another real leader.
The system does have a good side. There is an opportunity to have a leader, and that is during their second term. On a president’s second term, they no longer have to play politics. They have the opportunity to break the shackles of their promises, but those shackles will still haunt them. Breaking the shackles can piss off congress, and can lead to another lame-duck president. Also, the president may not even wish to break the shackles, because doing so depends on their personality. Even more so, breaking the shackles will not make them a good leader, but instead just possibly give them an opportunity to lead.
In America today, if you want to see leadership, you should look away from politics and more toward the military. The military is one of the best places for people to lead, and that is one reason why some of the nation’s best leaders have been leaders during war. In the military, there is no time to play politics or perpetually question decisions. A second of time wasted is disadvantageous, and because of that inaction and fear of political consequence is more disadvantageous than advantageous.
Tldr: We know our leaders too well, and because of that only great politicians get a chance to lead. Leaders never get a chance to lead unless they’re in the military.
Alex, I commend your thought process in regard to the effect of technology on our knowledge of politicians. While I agree with you that the media over exaggerates and focuses too much on trivial details about the lives of politicians, I do not think technology should be so viciously criticized. Has not technology also been used to genuinely educate citizens? While there are, of course, the biased writers who care more about the tie that a politician wore than his or her view on a topic, are there not sources that are unbiased and strictly educational? There are a great abundance of attack ads, especially at election time, and that’s just politics. You’re absolutely right in that aspect, that these just seem phony and are a means of trying to get ahead by making the other guy seem like a villain. On the other hand, reliable sources like governmental databases and journals that are made available to the country provide invaluable information, some of which we could only access through use of technology. Think of how technology is used to organize and present data in an orderly fashion and how easy it is to access that information. By having this information readily available to countless citizens, maybe eventually it can even eliminate the “uneducated voter.” Then, maybe a true leader will be chosen.
DeleteIt would be better, instead of making promises, to make suggestions for the future. In this election, we heard all about a five point plan from the Republican candidate, but we hardly heard what those five points actually were. He hid his plans and ideas, which you suggest is a tactic that should be used for victory, and he did not win. Our president, on the other hand, laid out his plans and reasons why he would like to pursue them. Wouldn’t you want all of the views of a potential leader to be known before you placed a vote? Would you rather have a president who says this is what I would like to try or a president who doesn’t give you any idea whatsoever of the plans for the term? A presidential election, while at times it may seem to be so, is not a 16 year old promising the student body chocolate milk for lunch every day and no homework on weekends. Perhaps potential leaders use the word promise more to sound like they know what they’re doing than for the actual meaning of the word. Our president may not have achieved all he proposed back in 2008, yet he still was elected for a second term. “Promises” went unfulfilled, but he was still able to be re-elected. You are absolutely correct in saying that the president should be leading the country, not just the people who put him in office. However, maybe a deeper look into the political system needs to be done to see why the best course of action for the country is not always taken. Opposing parties care more about having their view acted on than the good of the entire country. It may not be one leader or politician’s fault that the best course of action is not taken, but rather the fault of the entire governmental system.
You’re wise in saying that a leader can be found in the military. In fact, in Plato’s Republic, he states that an elite group called the guardians should serve as a military and leaders for the State. Plato’s guardians are the best of the best of the citizens. They undergo specific training, education, and lifestyle commitments that would assist them the most in ruling and defending the State. This is done so that the State can be benefitted as a whole. Individual need is placed aside so that the whole can survive and prosper. This is similar to what you mentioned in regard to having a president who rules the whole country, not just his party. Instead of focusing so much on how the biased media developed citizens’ view of a president or presidential candidate decides who wins, reflect on how the United States could better train and educate our children so that an elite group of leaders would arise - not a politician, but perhaps a philosopher, a lover of wisdom and pursuer of knowledge.
Stefanie I.
first off, thank you Steph for the thoughtful and well thought out response, but there are a few points which i disagree on(also please excuse grammatical errors as i am writing this for the second time since my computer died). Technology is in many senses a double edged sword; it can be used for spreading the truth and it can be used to corrupt people with lies. Technology is one of the greatest hopes for ending the uneducated voter, but at the same time it isn't.
DeleteOne of the greatest problems is that people do not have time, or are not willing to put in the effort required to actively search for the truth. Because of that people will look to a source of information which is simple, and is credible. Unfortunately credibility is something which is intrinsically determined, and one of the greater determining factors of credibility is popularity. one of the cognitive biases is the bandwagon effect. "All of these people cant be wrong, so this must be true." Due to this effect popular stories are likely to be believed.
Lets take this from the media's standpoint. In the media there are two types of journalists. The ones who have no intention of saying anything other than the truth, and those who wish to report a sensational story. The sensational stories often marginalize the truth, in order to gain popularity, and in turn that popularity gives them a sense of credibility. This leads to the growth of sensationalist news reporting and is why there is a headline every day on one of the major news networks exaggerating a soundbite that some poor guy said.
This is why the uneduicated voter isnt going anywhere soon. The truth is out there, and readily available, but understanding all of it takes time and effort. Also the reason we have a representative government is so we can afford to have an uneduicated voter. We elect representatives who have the most similar opinions to ourselves so they will in tern act on legislation which we may not even know about on our behalf.
You made a pretty good point about the fact that Romney never pointed out his plan. That was one of the reasons he didn't get elected. He seemed as though he was hiding something, and people couldn't really understand where he stood on most of his issues. That is one reason people didnt vote for him, they really didnt know if they could trust him.
I personally believe that this election was not really as much about Romney v. Obama, as much as it was an Obama v. Not Obama campaign. Most of the republicans I spoke with seemed to hate obama care and call him a communist/socialist. They didnt necessarily endorse romneys plans, as much as they disagreed with obama and chose the alternative.
Also obama had no other choice than to display his plan because he was running with a "track record" he has 4 years of political action in office to display his policy, and it was already well known what stances he would take on certain issues. He couldnt really hide anything even if he wanted to.
Tldr: uneduicated voter will always be there because of the media, economics, and if they were going to be eduicated we might aswell have a true democracy instead of a republic. Also, in this election the politician who took a stance won, because people could trust him& people didnt feel he was hiding something.
The most memorable leaders overtime have all -in my opinion- exhibited a number of essential traits necessary in regards to achieving a successful reign. The traits a leader possesses can either help to lead and inspire during his or her administration. Each of these traits that most successful leaders possessed related to the needs and wants of the people allowing the people to believe in their leaders and be inspired by them. To inspire and gain the trust of the people below him or her, one of the most important things a leader must do is be honest.
ReplyDeleteHonesty should not be a hard thing for a leader to practice while speaking to the people. If our current candidates were honest and had no problem being entirely open, without omitting certain opinions, our next president may have been a lot clearer. Neither of the two candidates openly and honestly answered every question they were given. Both candidates would avoid answering certain questions in order to keep certain votes but that shouldn’t be how the course of election is run. There will hardly ever be a perfect leader who shares all the same opinions as each and every voter.
Voters also have to understand this point; that there may not be the perfect candidate they believe should run the country. If both running candidates were upfront making all of their opinions very evident, as well as being honest, courageous, charismatic, organized, and well rounded overall, this election would have been a lot more accurate and I believe that if the candidates were outgoing with their opinions, I believe more people would have taken the time to vote and have a better understanding of which candidate he or she preferred.
>Kate M
I believe a leader is someone who has many skills that can motivate not only yourself but a group of people to reach a goal. A leader in my eyes is someone who has a great vision, but at the same time stays true to moral values. If someone in a position to lead lies or does something morally wrong he or she will lose the support of everyone that is supporting him or her. Therefore a leader need to be a trustworthy person. The reason we have so few leaders these days is because people in high up positions have realized that it's a lot easier to lie to people to make them happy then it is to tell them the truth when it could anger them. Unfortunately, these days our society has become lazy and is always looking for the easy way out and therefore we really don't have many trustworthy leaders.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion it is going to be very hard to find a solution to this problem, but the only thing I can think of is to educate the public on all issues. Especially for the presidential election many people who vote do not truly know the issues surrounding the election. Our country would rather have a president that looks the part and lies to you then a president that will tell you exactly what his views are and what he plans on doing about the issues. At this point in our country I think it is going to be very hard to find a solution to this problem
Mike Rahn
Define lie. Because didn't both presidential candidates this election "lie" to the general public. President Obama has been
Deletecriticized for lying to the U.S. during his previous 4 years of his presidency and yet he was still elected and people still support him. And how would you educate the public? The information is already out there for them to absorb. How would you motivate or influence them to attain this knowledge? And your statement that people would not support a leader who lies is contradictory to your statement in that leaders today lie to make them happy. Wouldn't lying turn the public away from these leaders?
Do all good leaders need to be 100% truthful and honest? Consider FDR: considered one of America's greatest presidents and leaders. He kept things to himself and wasn't 100% truthful to the public. Was he still a great leader?
Eric H
What is a leader? Who is a leader? Who decides the leaders of today? Society. Society not only builds up great leaders, but also tears them down. They set the norms of the world in which we live and determine who it is they want to lead them.
ReplyDeleteSo, what makes someone a good leader? What differentiates leaders from one another? Is it the way in which they connect to society? Or is it the stand they take on improving this world as a whole? In today’s society, leaders are often judged on their “likeability.” Just because someone is likeable, it does not determine whether or not they will bring the world to new places.
True leaders are often shut down, recoiled from society. Society needs to learn to listen and stand apart from societal norm, adopting leaders that will take them to new limits.
Juliana Puleo
It is easily arguable that society chooses today's leaders and that leaders are chosen based on their "likeability" as you put it. However, you never quite stated what a true leader is. You said "true leaders are often shut down", but what is a true leader? and by definition, isn't a leader someone who stands out above the crowd. Someone who distinguishes him or herself from society and takes charge. And you raised several great questions, but did not efficiently answer them all.
ReplyDeleteEric H
I believe what makes an individual a leader to someone is pure perception. I define perception as the depth and base of information, and interactions an individual has with somebody. For example, the vast majority of Americas were very uneducated about the policies and standings of Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney concerning the election. The average person would witness news clips and television campaign ads and create their own perception of that leader. Their perception would then alter the way their future acceptance of the leader was handled and ultimately their vote. I believe people of today’s society are quick to make lasting impressions of leaders, and everyday people in their minds. Once the individual forms the impression of somebody in their mind, it is usually quite hard to alter those thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThe rapid increase in social media, technological interaction, and the use of technological machines has changed the way human minds work. People of my generation rarely better educate themselves by forming their own opinion and thinking situations through. It has become very easy to search for an answer and not have to utilize your mind to develop your own opinion.
By essence of people not forming their own opinions, the perception of the individuals plays an extremely large role. This could potentially become very hazardous to society, and America as a nation. The people who are going to be labeled “Leaders” are those who refrain from “going against the grain”, have popular policies and who quite frankly present themselves in an attractive and persuasive way. Therefore, it is of upmost importance before you declare somebody to be your leader it is important to understand what he or she stand for, and do some intellectual research about that person.
-Nicole G.