"Does government continue to function as it should, when the elected officials don't do their jobs???? Why would the American public allow this to continue? The second part of the question has to do with the current chapter...What are the characteristics of a good President? A leader? Do they quit before the game is over??"
Us Americans are too lazy, or too afraid, to stand up and question authority. We would all rather sit around and complain about our woes, then stand up and argue for our right to competent leadership. As we've seen in the last three-four years, while all of us read amusing political cartoons mocking our fearless leader (although the jokes were sometimes too close to home), no one had the guts, not even people in the Cabinet or anywhere else, to say "Hey, what the hell's going on here?". We surrendered; as a population we surrendered to mediocre leadership and accepted our fate as an economic downfall and pointless war raged on. Why would we let this happen? We're just to lazy or scared or doubtful that one little voice could say something significant. Forget the strong personalities like Martin Luther King Jr. or Arnold Schwarzenegger who got an idea and stuck with it, and individually persevered over the brick walls holding them back. Now a days we are all just sitting around waiting for someone to come fix everything for us.
A good leader, however, is someone, who, and I'm sorry I'm not agreeing with the book here, that isn't necessarily a good persuader, but a person who has ideas that are agreeable with the nation. That has nothing to do with power of persuasion as much as having useful ideas that will benefit the nation. Rarely do presidents "give up", unless you have plunged your country into economic depression and a pointless war abroad, or if you have cheated and lied and been in a Watergate Scandal. That generally would be reason (although not good reason) to begin forfeiting the role of anything in command. When the president's brownie points are waning, it's hard to get things to pass or to make any agenda. It's a lost cause really. That doesn't mean they should, and I guess that does enforce the idea of a president giving up early. Tis a shame really, that after all the hub-bub of the election, and the tears and money and support and voting and bumper stickers and shirts, and trashy slogans that slam opponents....it's a shame that after all that the leader we've chosen can't even finish off decently, or at least clean up the mess they've made.
So, as for a conclusion, we are a nation of lazy scared twits that can't even elect a leader who will devote their given four years to benefiting the nation to it's fullest. We are all overly accepting of moderate work and average behavior and 80% effort. Let's hope the next one, Obama, can clean this mess up.
Us Americans are too lazy, or too afraid, to stand up and question authority. We would all rather sit around and complain about our woes, then stand up and argue for our right to competent leadership. As we've seen in the last three-four years, while all of us read amusing political cartoons mocking our fearless leader (although the jokes were sometimes too close to home), no one had the guts, not even people in the Cabinet or anywhere else, to say "Hey, what the hell's going on here?". We surrendered; as a population we surrendered to mediocre leadership and accepted our fate as an economic downfall and pointless war raged on. Why would we let this happen? We're just to lazy or scared or doubtful that one little voice could say something significant. Forget the strong personalities like Martin Luther King Jr. or Arnold Schwarzenegger who got an idea and stuck with it, and individually persevered over the brick walls holding them back. Now a days we are all just sitting around waiting for someone to come fix everything for us.
A good leader, however, is someone, who, and I'm sorry I'm not agreeing with the book here, that isn't necessarily a good persuader, but a person who has ideas that are agreeable with the nation. That has nothing to do with power of persuasion as much as having useful ideas that will benefit the nation. Rarely do presidents "give up", unless you have plunged your country into economic depression and a pointless war abroad, or if you have cheated and lied and been in a Watergate Scandal. That generally would be reason (although not good reason) to begin forfeiting the role of anything in command. When the president's brownie points are waning, it's hard to get things to pass or to make any agenda. It's a lost cause really. That doesn't mean they should, and I guess that does enforce the idea of a president giving up early. Tis a shame really, that after all the hub-bub of the election, and the tears and money and support and voting and bumper stickers and shirts, and trashy slogans that slam opponents....it's a shame that after all that the leader we've chosen can't even finish off decently, or at least clean up the mess they've made.
So, as for a conclusion, we are a nation of lazy scared twits that can't even elect a leader who will devote their given four years to benefiting the nation to it's fullest. We are all overly accepting of moderate work and average behavior and 80% effort. Let's hope the next one, Obama, can clean this mess up.
1 comment:
Ah..but is he cleaning it up? Several appointments have had to withdraw because of scandal, the bail out is not bipartisan...Just some thoughts really....hmmm
Post a Comment