RIGHT NOW MY roommates are watching “Braveheart.â€Â Meanwhile, I’m in my room reading stories about King Arthur in Tennyson’s “Idylls of the Kingâ€Â (for a class, I swear). Somewhere in this great country of ours, a group of people is having a discussion about who our next president should be. What do these three things have in common?
They all concern the issue of leadership.
We all feel a need to watch and study our favorite leader̢۪s every move. For many young people, reading stories and watching movies about King Arthur and William Wallace are ways to build an image of an ideal leader. Others may admire modern leaders like Hillary Clinton, who sets an example for ambitious women, and consider them ideal leaders. Some people even admire our current president so much that they consider him an ideal leader (these people do exist, I̢۪m sure of it, though they̢۪re probably in the second grade and have frightening parents).
The important thing is that we set standards of what we want in a leader by reading about and watching real people and then discussing what they do, either with others or with our own imaginations (which is not crazy, I̢۪m sure of it). When it comes time to choose our president and our representatives, we should make our choices based on who comes nearest to our ideal.
So maybe I̢۪ve been setting my standards too high, but every candidate I̢۪ve considered for president doesn̢۪t even come close to my ideal leader.
Who is my ideal leader? I want a leader with strong convictions who has led a decent, moral life and has the ability to raise a strong family. I want a leader who can speak in public and make people take action for the betterment of their country. I want a leader who doesn̢۪t rely upon demagoguery, playing in to our religious, patriotic and emotional biases, but who relies upon reason and is willing to put his or her career on the line in order to do what is right.
All the people running fall so far from this ideal that I don̢۪t know if I̢۪m even going to vote. Do I really want to pledge 100 percent of my vote to someone who only matches one percent of my ideal?
But maybe it̢۪s best to just choose the lesser of two evils and pick one lousy candidate so that the worse candidate won̢۪t win. Maybe this is just a time in our country̢۪s history when we have to make the most of what we have.
Or maybe my standards aren̢۪t even realistic. Maybe all the history books falsely glorify leaders of the past and the movies raise the bar to impossible heights. I was shocked to learn recently that Abraham Lincoln was a terrible public speaker with a high-pitched voice and no clue what to do with his hands; he would either put them awkwardly behind his back or leave them in the center of the podium and twiddle his thumbs. That̢۪s not the Abraham Lincoln I̢۪ve always imagined, the Lincoln who inspired no end of confidence and moved mountains with his speech. Maybe I wouldn̢۪t recognize a great leader if I saw one.
So is it better to offer loyalty only to people I recognize as great leaders or to support whatever leader will do a better job than the other guy? I don̢۪t really like either option, but when it comes time to vote I will probably just cave to the social pressure and put my name down for one moron or another. Was this what our fathers fought for? Was this the dream they had for my future?
gm • Nov 5, 2007 at 10:40 am
Tim,
I certainly agree with you that the only thing our current crop of political leaders and candidates inspire is cynicism. Yet, I do think you miss the most important point when it comes to voting. The picking between the lesser of 2 evils approach is used as an excuse by millions to not vote or inform themselves about what is going on. This simply results in political candidates pandering to an ever smaller cadre of political interests whose views and aims rarely have much to do with what is best for the country as a whole. L
et me put this another way. Voter turnout numbers, as bad as they are, don’t tell the whole story because they reflect a percentage of eligible voters. In 2004, 55% of eligible voters cast a ballot, about 122 million people. But remember that is out of a population of around 300 million. About 50 million registered but did not vote, a similar number did not register and the rest are precluded from voting because of age, citizenship status etc…
So think about this for a minute. In 2004, a presidential candidate needed to garner the votes of just over 60 million people to win. (Bush got 62) That means they only need to appeal (or pander) to about 20% of the total population. Regardless of your political persuasion, that gives the wealthy, powerful and more extreme elements, tremendous influence over who gets elected and who we get to select from.
The only way we can alter the political landscape is by voting in increasing numbers so that the candidates will be forced to speak to our broader interests in ways that inspire and inform. in short, right now we have the leadership we deserve.
gm • Nov 5, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Tim,
I certainly agree with you that the only thing our current crop of political leaders and candidates inspire is cynicism. Yet, I do think you miss the most important point when it comes to voting. The picking between the lesser of 2 evils approach is used as an excuse by millions to not vote or inform themselves about what is going on. This simply results in political candidates pandering to an ever smaller cadre of political interests whose views and aims rarely have much to do with what is best for the country as a whole. L
et me put this another way. Voter turnout numbers, as bad as they are, don’t tell the whole story because they reflect a percentage of eligible voters. In 2004, 55% of eligible voters cast a ballot, about 122 million people. But remember that is out of a population of around 300 million. About 50 million registered but did not vote, a similar number did not register and the rest are precluded from voting because of age, citizenship status etc…
So think about this for a minute. In 2004, a presidential candidate needed to garner the votes of just over 60 million people to win. (Bush got 62) That means they only need to appeal (or pander) to about 20% of the total population. Regardless of your political persuasion, that gives the wealthy, powerful and more extreme elements, tremendous influence over who gets elected and who we get to select from.
The only way we can alter the political landscape is by voting in increasing numbers so that the candidates will be forced to speak to our broader interests in ways that inspire and inform. in short, right now we have the leadership we deserve.