Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Back to Real Politics 18

Journal by pudge

I read this in a comment today: A good leader should be able once elected to then be a leader to the whole country. Not just those that voted for him. Simply put considering the recent american election results a democrat should be half repiblican and a republican half democrat BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THE AMERICAN PUBLIC VOTED.

I wouldn't bother mentioning it except that a lot of people believe it. A lot of people believe Bush was obligated to do things the Democrats wanted because the election was so close in 2000.

Ignoring the fact that this goes against our Constitutional system, let's examine what this actually means. You have a leader. He has his beliefs of what is best for the country. You want this leader to, half the time, go AGAINST his beliefs of what is best for the country. This is your definition of a good leader: someone who FOLLOWS what other people think is best for the country, instead of doing what he thinks is best.

Pardon me for saying that this is a load of bunk.

Update: Oh, and many of you might think this is just some idiot on Slashdot saying this. I forgot to mention, this was in the New York Times editorial endorsing Kerry: Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Back to Real Politics More

Back to Real Politics

Comments Filter:
  • Pardon me for saying that this is a load of bunk.

    I am one not to get dirty or anything, but I think your statement isn't harsh enough. "That's the biggest load of shit I've heard in years," would have been more appropriate, IMHO ;-)

    I don't even think Democrats will disagree with you there.
  • As far as splitting policy goes, I certainly agree. On the other hand, I believe it's a leader's responsibility to unite the country and if he deeply alienates part of it, he's not doing his job.

    Right (George W. Bush) or left (Hugo Chavez).

    • I agree a good leader will unite his people if possible, but yeah, he won't do it by doing what he thinks is bad for the country.
    • On the other hand, I believe it's a leader's responsibility to unite the country and if he deeply alienates part of it, he's not doing his job.

      What if you look at it from the perspective that President Bush didn't alienate part of the US, but that part of the US alienated themselves from President Bush?

      Consider this analogy. You're the in charge of finding a place for a group of 10 to eat. 5 want chinese, 3 want pizza, and 2 don't care. 2 of the 5 are allergic to dairy and get sick eating pizza. But

      • I absolutely agree with you about the hypocrisy and duplicity of the left who whine about unity. But let's face it, if it is the job of the President to unite the country -- and I think a case can be made for this -- then Bush has failed.

        Is it possible for him to have succeeded? Probably not, and I see no hope that Kerry can. But if Kerry does, it won't be because he is better at the job, but because people on the right are not as big a group of whiners. Oh, they whine too, but not in such huge numbers
        • There may have been instances in the last four years where the Republicans could have refrained from shoving non-constructive legislation through just because they had a majority, but didn't (I don't know of any offhand). The Democrats could have given a better voice to loyal opposition.

          In other words, if Bush failed to unite the country, in the sense you mentioned here, then so did the Democrats, IMO.

          I do indeed share your sense of the right; they seem far less inclined to trumpet their disagreements.
      • For 2 people to unite, it takes 2 people's involvement.

        Sure, but I get to vote for the president, not for the idiot protester. Again, I'm not talking about splitting the difference on policy, but about tone and putting inclusiveness ahead of confrontation.

        • To be fair, I must say I don't mind a confrontation with a protestor, if it's not an "idiot protestor". I don't mind confrontation, so much as I mind confrontationalism.
  • And I think this is one of the reasons why "character" needs to be important in an elected official--we need to trust them not only to stick to what they think is best and what they campaigned on, but also to know when the right time to change is and how to make good decisions.

    I'd go a step further, and say we really ought be electing "leaders" rather than "platforms", but that's probably too "out there" for the american two-party public.
  • I believe "Doing the best for the Country" is important to the all the folks running for the Presidency. Granted, each party has a different priority set and road map to do the greater good, and I'm pretty sure neither Bush nor Kerry want anything bad to happen to the country or the citizens of our nation. The election is not intended to be a popularity contest, it is an important selection system to identify a leader based on broad not deep assent. Presidents are not elected to office by a rabid base, b
    • I am still an undecided voter, and will not make my choice until I am in the polls.

      I have to ask... What information are you lacking to make a decision? Is there information about either candidate that has yet to be provided? More succinctly, what is it about being in the polling booth that will allow you to make a decision where you cannot make one now? The difference is only 6 days, and I, for one, don't expect any major changes in either candidate between now and then.

      I don't mean for these questio
      • It is a valid question, no offense taken. I have not been convinced by either candidate or campaign to make a choice. Domestic safety is an issue with both, and neither can diagram any type of long term foreign strategy. I don't see either making an impact on my average life making average wages paying average taxes. Don't take my indecision as apathy. I still invest much time and effort in dissecting information, perhaps more than the commited voter that made a decision soon after the primaries. I gu
        • The problem is that party lines are silly to a lot of people. I may agree with the majority of the GOP platform, but just because you believe in small government (humor me) and pre-emptive defense doesn't mean you are against gay marriage and abortions.

Slashdot Top Deals

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Close