Worst and best things a national leader can do

[wmw999 2,588]

Rather than going on and on about the current crop of US "leader" options available, I thought it'd be a little better to talk about what we would consider to be a stellar thing that a national leader could do; given the constraints of their job in our various countries (eg the President can't make laws, a PM has limitations, etc).

Best, to me, would be defined as actions that would encourage the country towards a long-term fiscally responsible and realistic society. Realistic because, frankly, we do have people who are stupid, lazy, sick, and many other descriptions who exist, and therefore must be taken into account. We're not going to start just killing them, or encouraging them to commit suicide, so maybe we need to include them in plans.

Given the tendency of people to adjust to and begin to exploit every new system, things have to change.

To me, the worst thing a national leader can do is start a civil war for personal glory; but if I lived in a country with more endemic corruption, I might think it was something more in the raping the economy for personal gain area.

Please, though, if you want to use the words "democrat, republican, liberal or conservative" in your reply, consider whether those are actions or conditions.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

wmw999

Rather than going on and on about the current crop of US "leader" options available, I thought it'd be a little better to talk about what we would consider to be a stellar thing that a national leader could do; given the constraints of their job in our various countries (eg the President can't make laws, a PM has limitations, etc).

Best, to me, would be defined as actions that would encourage the country towards a long-term fiscally responsible and realistic society. Realistic because, frankly, we do have people who are stupid, lazy, sick, and many other descriptions who exist, and therefore must be taken into account. We're not going to start just killing them, or encouraging them to commit suicide, so maybe we need to include them in plans.

Given the tendency of people to adjust to and begin to exploit every new system, things have to change.

To me, the worst thing a national leader can do is start a civil war for personal glory; but if I lived in a country with more endemic corruption, I might think it was something more in the raping the economy for personal gain area.

Please, though, if you want to use the words "democrat, republican, liberal or conservative" in your reply, consider whether those are actions or conditions.

Wendy P.

Start with my favorite JFK quote - "Ask not what your country can do for you . . . "

Start there and work backward, but backwards VERY SLOWLY.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[GeorgiaDon 380]

The best: articulate a compelling vision of changes to the status quo that would result in an overall improvement in quality of life. Be willing to listen seriously to alternative ideas, recognize when the various participants in the discussion may share ultimate goals but differ on how to achieve them, and be willing to negotiate and compromise to get at least part way to the goal. Start from an assumption that opponents also want what is best for the country, even if their ideas differ from yours.

The worst: actions/positions that are intended to divide people into hostile camps, especially if it is done to create a group the leader can exploit to gain personal power.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[TriGirl 343]

Nicely said.

I would extend that to include being able to identify which personal characteristics are simply Irrelevant. It isn't about tolerance, but what is just not relevant. You can pray to whatever deity you choose (or not at all). You can choose to be in a life-long, legal, committed relationship with whomever you want*. You can change your body (colors, hair, gender, etc). Your personal thoughts are IRRELEVANT. Your actions on others, and your rights and entitlements in relation to those rights and entitlements everyone else may have, ARE relevant.





*Before this part starts a verbal battle, it also ties to actions on others -- I'm talking about humans over the age of majority. Both must be in a legal position to make the decision for themselves.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[rehmwa 2]

TriGirl

Nicely said.

I would extend that to include being able to identify which personal characteristics are simply Irrelevant. It isn't about tolerance, but what is just not relevant. You can pray to whatever deity you choose (or not at all). You can choose to be in a life-long, legal, committed relationship with whomever you want*. You can change your body (colors, hair, gender, etc). Your personal thoughts are IRRELEVANT. Your actions on others, and your rights and entitlements in relation to those rights and entitlements everyone else may have, ARE relevant.





*Before this part starts a verbal battle, it also ties to actions on others -- I'm talking about humans over the age of majority. Both must be in a legal position to make the decision for themselves.

I'm on board with you guys on this - it sure sounds simple and direct doesn't it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 226]

TriGirl

Nicely said.

I would extend that to include being able to identify which personal characteristics are simply Irrelevant. It isn't about tolerance, but what is just not relevant. You can pray to whatever deity you choose (or not at all). You can choose to be in a life-long, legal, committed relationship with whomever you want*. You can change your body (colors, hair, gender, etc). Your personal thoughts are IRRELEVANT. Your actions on others, and your rights and entitlements in relation to those rights and entitlements everyone else may have, ARE relevant.





*Before this part starts a verbal battle, it also ties to actions on others -- I'm talking about humans over the age of majority. Both must be in a legal position to make the decision for themselves.

I think there should be a caveat that others should not have to be forced to use our tax dollars to make these things happen. If it's your decision, it's your burden.

Otherwise I agree.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[yoink 321]

Tough question, because it's entirely based on your perspective.

For the head of a weapons manufacturer or defense contracting firm maybe a good thing would be starting a new war. For average Joe citizen, not so much....

Personally I think the best thing a new leader could get done in their term would be to completely revamp the election process. Remove gerrymandering and the electoral college for a start. If they can introduce an alternative form of voting too, then I'd call them a successful president - regardless of their policies.

[Croc 0]

wmw999

Rather than going on and on about the current crop of US "leader" options available, I thought it'd be a little better to talk about what we would consider to be a stellar thing that a national leader could do; given the constraints of their job in our various countries (eg the President can't make laws, a PM has limitations, etc).

Best, to me, would be defined as actions that would encourage the country towards a long-term fiscally responsible and realistic society. Realistic because, frankly, we do have people who are stupid, lazy, sick, and many other descriptions who exist, and therefore must be taken into account. We're not going to start just killing them, or encouraging them to commit suicide, so maybe we need to include them in plans.

Given the tendency of people to adjust to and begin to exploit every new system, things have to change.

To me, the worst thing a national leader can do is start a civil war for personal glory; but if I lived in a country with more endemic corruption, I might think it was something more in the raping the economy for personal gain area.

Please, though, if you want to use the words "democrat, republican, liberal or conservative" in your reply, consider whether those are actions or conditions.

Wendy P.

Best: Defend the Constitution; primarily by acting within the limits of the office he or she holds. (That ship has long ago sailed, me thinks.)
Worst: During wartime, micro manage the military and at the same time provide no clear leadership.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[Coreeece 2]

TriGirl

*** we do have people who are stupid, lazy, sick, and many other descriptions who exist, and therefore must be taken into account. We're not going to start just killing them, or encouraging them to commit suicide, so maybe we need to include them in plans.

You can pray to whatever deity you choose (or not at all). You can choose to be in a life-long, legal, committed relationship with whomever you want*. You can change your body (colors, hair, gender, etc).

Ok, that covers the stupid people, but what about the lazy and the sick?

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour