Jump to content

I think we need a leader that embodies the best characteristics of FDR, JFK, Lincoln, and even Reagan


CmdrShepSpectre2183
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think we need a president who is optimistic and inspiring. A president who advocates for stronger social programs and the rebuilding of infrastructure. They would try to inspire people to support science, engineering, and space exploration. They would also speak out against authoritarianism and tyranny of all kinds. They would unite America and it's allies against China and Russia. If there is still a war on drugs they would at least decriminalize marijuana. While doing all of this they would do anything they can to stop climate change.

And they are an idealist who believes humanity should strive for the "Star Trek future".

Is this an unreasonable standard for a leader?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CmdrShepSpectre2183 said:

A president who advocates for stronger social programs and the rebuilding of infrastructure.

And how do we do this without raising taxes or cutting military spending, or increasing the deficit? because roughly half of the congressional population will oppose it (i.e. not be inspired) if any of those things happen.

 As for most of the rest of the list - optimistic, advocates for stronger social programs and rebuilding of infrastructure, speak out against authoritarianism and tyranny, oppose China and Russia, as I see it the current president checks of all of those, and somehow unity doesn't seem to be imminent.

 

(IOW certain elements within US politics seems to be very much tribal and much less driven by policy and what is in the best interests of the people)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a populist approach to the subject, and so it's flawed from the start. Bernie Sanders had it right; elect the leader that stands for what YOU stand for, one who is more interested in maintaining a movement towards the goals we share rather than doing what's popular to stay in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CmdrShepSpectre2183 said:

Is this an unreasonable standard for a leader?

Quote

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves." - Nietzsche

Cometh the hour cometh the man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CmdrShepSpectre2183 said:

Is this an unreasonable standard for a leader?

Not necessarily, but you seem to forget the president cannot unilaterally set policy. We need these leaders writing the laws in congress, not executing them from the oval office.

I am also skeptical that it would matter even if such a leader were in place. With ideological bubbles and information ecosystems as they exist today, Jesus or Mohammed themselves would be attacked by trolls and treated as the devil himself by half the population. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CmdrShepSpectre2183 said:

I think we need a president who is optimistic and inspiring. A president who advocates for stronger social programs and the rebuilding of infrastructure. They would try to inspire people to support science, engineering, and space exploration.

So far it sounds like A.H...

6 hours ago, CmdrShepSpectre2183 said:

They would unite X and it's allies against Y and Z.

Still sounds like A.H...

"Strong united nation" against some true or imagined enemies/political opponents..

6 hours ago, CmdrShepSpectre2183 said:

While doing all of this they would do anything they can to stop climate change.

Some parts are mutually exclusive with other parts of your statement..

How to unite people against the industries they work for e.g. miners, oil & gas workers etc. ? They want to continue living the way they used to, while crying how it happened they and family got cancers and other illnesses caused by what they do for living entire life, sometimes generation by generation..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Sensei said:

So far it sounds like A.H...

And a whole host of other politicians. 

Defining characteristics of authoritarian leaders includes the appeal to emotion and not fact. I don't think they would be in favor of science beyond what they could pervert to align with and achieve their goals. And they preach hatred and division rather than unity

Even really horrible people are going to have some things in common with good. Focusing on the commonalities does nothing to distinguish them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

It says a lot that nobody mentioned "honesty" as a desirable trait yet.

We already know that there's a large chunk of the electorate in many countries that do not value this trait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

We already know that there's a large chunk of the electorate in many countries that do not value this trait.

I think they value it; they just don't recognise it.
To be fair, they have seen few examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CmdrShepSpectre2183 said:

I think we need a president who is optimistic and inspiring. A president who advocates for stronger social programs and the rebuilding of infrastructure. They would try to inspire people to support science, engineering, and space exploration. They would also speak out against authoritarianism and tyranny of all kinds. They would unite America and it's allies against China and Russia. If there is still a war on drugs they would at least decriminalize marijuana. While doing all of this they would do anything they can to stop climate change.

 

Obama's third term,  then.   I seem to recall a third of the electorate got pissed when he put his feet up on the desk.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Obama's third term,  then.   I seem to recall a third of the electorate got pissed when he put his feet up on the desk.  

Aussies are not that particular with regards to a leader's antics, as long as they are doing a good job. One of our best Prime Minister's was Bob Hawke, a real larrikin,  who openly admitted to "commiting adultery" yet was still elected to a third term after the revelation. He also fancied a beer. A brief history of the yard of ale and the 21st birthday 'tradition' |  Stuff.co.nz

He could also tell a great yarn with the magic "F" word.....

He was also a Rhodes scholar.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Aussies are not that particular with regards to a leader's antics, as long as they are doing a good job. One of our best Prime Minister's was Bob Hawke, a real larrikin,  who openly admitted to "commiting adultery" yet was still elected to a third term after the revelation. He also fancied a beer. 

He could also tell a great yarn with the magic "F" word.....

He was also a Rhodes scholar.

All Aussies, or just the real men? He sounds like he enabled a whole lot of ignorant and toxic male behavior that kept women in the shadows for an extra generation. What a peach. I think Australian men deserve a  better role model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

All Aussies, or just the real men? He sounds like he enabled a whole lot of ignorant and toxic male behavior that kept women in the shadows for an extra generation. What a peach. I think Australian men deserve a  better role model. 

While he did admit to adultery as I mentioned, he certainly was not in any way behaving in any toxic manner agaisnt females. He also served three terms, enhanced our health system for all, had a hand in indigenous land rights, and also pushed for equal pay for men and women. Like I said, he was otherwise a bit of a larrikin. One can certainly be a larrikin as well as condusive to women's rights and equality.

In case being a larrikin has other meanings elswhere...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrikin

Larrikin is an Australian English term meaning "a mischievous young person, an uncultivated, rowdy but good hearted person", or "a person who acts with apparent disregard for social or political conventions".

Phi for All Perhaps yourself and most of our American friends are not as familiar with our Prime Ministers, as we are with your Presidents, but Bob Hawke was a momentous social reformer, as was the previous Labor PM, Gough Whitlam and all Labor PM's since and all did much for women's rights. Our first women Prime Minister was Labor, Julia Gillard. The Labor party is our party of reform. https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/sex-discrimination-act

 

https://medium.com/the-machinery-of-government/remembering-the-hawke-government-1983-1991-achievements-in-womens-policy-d40f9633ae9d

Regarded as a notorious adulterer, a larrikin and a man’s man, Bob Hawke might not come to mind as an advocate for feminism, either practically or intellectually. However, he recognised the need for political equality and economic justice and supported equal pay for women.

He appointed Susan Ryan to the portfolio of Minister assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women in 1983. Ann Summers was selected to run the Office of the Status of Women in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in December 1983. In 1984, the Sex Discrimination Act outlawed sex discrimination and protected women from sexual harassment in the workplace. The Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 has its legacy from the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. Employers had to report on the numbers of women they employed, their seniority and pay. The government increased spending on childcare, access to it expanded quickly. These achievements challenged the notion that a woman’s place was in the home.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm also known sometimes as a bit of a larrikin, although certainly not PM material! 😉

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Larrikin, man's man, rogue, scoundrel, all terms that enable the "boys will be boys" outlook that has led to so much inequality and looking the other way when male politicians abuse their power. I don't think all Aussies identify the same way about larrikins. It clearly hampers female politicians.

If you ask the good Senator Hanson for examples, she would probably rattle off names like Tony Abbott, Craig Kelly, and Scott Morrison [present PM] all Liberal party members...or the party of non reform, the party that would destroy our universal health scheme, reverse native land rights etc. Not Labor party members and specifically not Bob Hawke, and the party that gave us our first woman PM Julia Gillard. Certainly not "the good hearted larrikin" of which Hawke was one.

By the way from your link, the sign behind the former Liberal party  leader Tony Abbott, was in reference to Julia Gillard, the first Australian woman PM and Labor leader. 

 

Australia's then opposition leader, Tony Abbott, stands in front of a sign being held held by a protester in 2011. The sign reads: "Ditch the witch".

The woman in this photo, again from your link, was a Liberal party member and those blokes you see leaving, are all liberal party members....Julia Banks stands to speak in parliament as five male colleagues leave the chamber

Don't get me wrong, Phi for All, I'm not saying politics in Australia is fault free, nor even that the Labor Party is perfect, what I'm saying is that for the Aussie society in general, Labor is the party of reform, and has conducted much of that reform in a near 50/50 seats split in the house of representitives, and has found it difficult sometimes in election results that are near always split down the middle. The depths that some Liberal party politicians will go to to thwart major reform has been evidenced many times, particularly with the first Labor PM for 23 years in 1972, Gough Whitlam, and who was summarily dismissed in 1975. That period was the closest that this nation has ever been to outright civil war. More can be done, yes, and more will be done, when the next Labor leader becomes our PM.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best characteristics of Obama can be easily be included in the wish list of the OP, IMO.

In fact I would say the same about Clinton, and George H.W. bush to some extent.

The other's since Reagan...not so much.

(OT...that said, George W. Bush is starting to seem like less of an idiot everyday)

Just don't read that as every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you mean Beecee, America's most beloved President, J F K, was a womanizer who had very little respect for his wife, and banged more women than Bill Clinton could ever dream of, or Donald Trump could ever hope to pay for.

In my own country, our PM, while constantly preaching gender equality, is condescending towards women, and kicks them out of cabinet if they won't lie for him. The only female Canadian Prime Minister was a Conservative, not a Liberal.

All the Presidents mentioned in the OP were 'right for their times', but also flawed in many ways.
Same as some current Presidents. All are human, and have good and bad qualities; but there is never a right  time for a D Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reminded of the Matt Santos convention speech on The West Wing -- here's a snip:

We all live lives of imperfection and yet we cling to this fantasy that there’s this perfect life and that our leaders should embody it. But if we expect our leaders to live on some higher moral plain than the rest of us, well we’re just asking to be deceived. Now it’s been suggested to me this week that I should try to buy your support with jobs, and the promise of access. It’s been suggested to me that party unity is more important than your democratic rights as delegates. That’s right: it’s not. And you have a decision to make. Don’t vote for us because you think we’re perfect. Don’t vote for us because of what we might be able to do for you only. Vote for the person who shares your ideals, your hopes, your dreams. Vote for the person who most embodies what you believe we need to keep our nation strong and free....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

I know what you mean Beecee, America's most beloved President, J F K, was a womanizer who had very little respect for his wife, and banged more women than Bill Clinton could ever dream of, or Donald Trump could ever hope to pay for.

Look, I can understand where Phi for All was coming from, based on the face value of the description of Bob Hawke, and the videos I linked to. But with all due respect, he was wrong about Hawke...yes Hawke was a larrikin, yes Hawke was also a man's man, yes Hawke treated irreverently the politics he was a part of and parts of privaliged society in general, and yes Hawke also indulged in adultery, and at that stage when it was revealed, he subsequently lost a lot of respect, and much sympathy was directed towards his wife at the time. But he also did all I have mentioned, for females in general, sex equality and racism in our country also. He may have been a larrikin, but a larrikin best described as a lovable larrikin. He also had much to do with regards to his role in ending apartheid in South Africa, and his successful international campaign to protect Antarctica from mining as well as the environment in general. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

I am reminded of the Matt Santos convention speech on The West Wing -- here's a snip:

We all live lives of imperfection and yet we cling to this fantasy that there’s this perfect life and that our leaders should embody it. But if we expect our leaders to live on some higher moral plain than the rest of us, well we’re just asking to be deceived. Now it’s been suggested to me this week that I should try to buy your support with jobs, and the promise of access. It’s been suggested to me that party unity is more important than your democratic rights as delegates. That’s right: it’s not. And you have a decision to make. Don’t vote for us because you think we’re perfect. Don’t vote for us because of what we might be able to do for you only. Vote for the person who shares your ideals, your hopes, your dreams. Vote for the person who most embodies what you believe we need to keep our nation strong and free....

I hated that at the time, iirc. Nice slimy, strawman pivot from "higher moral plain (sic)" to "lies about jobs". It's the whole "I'm going to grope  and disrespect you and then I'm going to claim I'm only human after all" attitude that makes this kind of male behavior sustainable. 

I'm not asking for perfection (another strawman from the perspective). I'm asking that our male leaders don't get a pass on toxic, gender-based behavior. I'm fairly sick of the crappy point of view that boys will be boys. It's men who can't handle the power of the office and are abusing much more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I hated that at the time, iirc. Nice slimy, strawman pivot from "higher moral plain (sic)" to "lies about jobs". It's the whole "I'm going to grope  and disrespect you and then I'm going to claim I'm only human after all" attitude that makes this kind of male behavior sustainable. 

I'm not asking for perfection (another strawman from the perspective). I'm asking that our male leaders don't get a pass on toxic, gender-based behavior. I'm fairly sick of the crappy point of view that boys will be boys. It's men who can't handle the power of the office and are abusing much more than that.

Indeed +1

A true leader is not afraid of the moral high ground, nor do they seek to excuse their failing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I hated that at the time, iirc. Nice slimy, strawman pivot from "higher moral plain (sic)" to "lies about jobs". It's the whole "I'm going to grope  and disrespect you and then I'm going to claim I'm only human after all" attitude that makes this kind of male behavior sustainable. 

I'm not asking for perfection (another strawman from the perspective). I'm asking that our male leaders don't get a pass on toxic, gender-based behavior. I'm fairly sick of the crappy point of view that boys will be boys. It's men who can't handle the power of the office and are abusing much more than that.

I haven't seen the last three seasons, so I've only ever seen that speech out of the show's context.   The spouse and I have recently started catching up at season five,  so I guess we'll find out what that's all about.  It's funny,  seeing just the clip alone,  it was sort of inspiring and idealistic.  (you've now got me burning with curiosity)

Anyway, plus one,  and I am now alerted to an ironic subtext. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

A true leader is not afraid of the moral high ground, nor do they seek to excuse their failing.

I can also hope Joe Sixpack will someday see that idolizing these "rascals" as the epitome of masculinity ("a real man's man") gives a big thumb's up to their immoral behavior. Political office is an enormous privilege, and it's being conferred on scummy personalities who want the average guy to forgive them anything. They're ticks and leeches and for some reason they're being encouraged to keep on sucking.

16 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I haven't seen the last three seasons, so I've only ever seen that speech out of the show's context.   The spouse and I have recently started catching up at season five,  so I guess we'll find out what that's all about.  It's funny,  seeing just the clip alone,  it was sort of inspiring and idealistic.  (you've now got me burning with curiosity)

At the time I had just taken my colored glasses off to look at what Bill Clinton had really done (besides the prosperity we enjoyed). He's partly to blame for many of our current troubles with racial strife and untrustworthy news, but he also perpetuated this toxic myth that men just can't reasonably be expected to control themselves where sex is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.