Why Must Our Leaders Be Likable People

It’s psychological, I think. There are statists who depend entirely on government for protection, welfare, health, retirement etc. to get through life. I imagine that this sort of dependency requires an agreeable father (or mother) figure, or else the cognitive dissonance would be too much to bear.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I guess because the whole politics show is not as much about how good your policies are, but how well you sell them.

That's fair; politicians certainly act like used car salesman from time to time.

originally posted by: underwerks

You have to give respect to get it. Full stop.

Donald Trump has an appeal to people who enjoy bowing to authority. Who see a position or rank as something to be respected regardless of who is in that position. That’s crap. A position or rank is no reason to respect the person holding it.

Pin a rank to a turd, it’s still a turd.

I disagree; respect is never given. It can ONLY be earned through demonstrating strong character and building respectful relationship (i.e. merit), OR it is assigned, in some compulsory manner in which a captive audience has no choice BUT to act respectfully.,

Do you think the citizens of North Korea respect Kim Jon Un because he demonstrates respect for his subjects? No, not very convincing, particularly how atrocious living conditions are there. He is respected out of fear, but nevertheless respected (well he's beyond just respected but that gets into their whole "deity in the emperor's seat" pathology.

Many tyrants and despots throughout history have garnered respect, despite treating their citizens in highly non-respectful ways. What respect was given by Stalin to the subjects in the Soviet Union? Do you consider living with the absence of liberty, policing by the state, fear of the state, hopelessness and despair as suitable gestures of respect that Soviet citizens should've been happy to accept and reciprocate genuinely to Stalin?

Anyone can "give" respect to any other random person, but of what substance is that? Does that obligate me to respect someone automatically, in reciprocation, merely because they say they respect me?

There's a pretty wide gap in that line of reasoning, big enough to drive the presidential limo through. I feel like you are maybe trying to express the idea of respect as a byproduct of meritocratic behavior, but with this odd twist of a transactional imperative.

Your stance on not refusing to respect those that hold rank or those that occupy an official office sounds dysfunctional and maybe even a bit anarchistic and dystopian, but this attitude doesn't surprise me. I honestly would be interested in reading a thread entitled "My Utopian Model for Building a Harmonious and Equitable Social System, by Underwerks" Completely serious.

Now if we only had an example of how someone who treats people with absolutely no respect, can't tell the truth to save their life, spends the bulk of their time demonizing others - then cries how they are the victim, were president. If we could only have a 'leader' that is disliked by most of the country and the world universally, then we could see whether it ends up being good for Americans, and America, or not.

Oh wait.

Electing leaders that we "like" is what lead us down this crap shoot to begin with.

Hate the man all you want but hes kept his word.

I had one thing on my wish list. NAFTA. Now it's gone. Thinking of us little guys again.

Political elections should not be and never be a popularity contest or getting out of jail free card. We should gold these people to thier word. They should hold us up as we are thier leader. Not the other way around.

We the people forget the power we have. It's great that now a lot of people are seeing it and its beautiful

originally posted by: okrian
Now if we only had an example of how someone who treats people with absolutely no respect, can't tell the truth to save their life, spends the bulk of their time demonizing others - then cries how they are the victim, were president. If we could only have a 'leader' that is disliked by most of the country and the world universally, then we could see whether it ends up being good for Americans, and America, or not.

Oh wait.

Some of you are bringing Trump into this discussion as a diversionary tactic. Yes, he triggers you, we get it.

There have been many many historical figures that defy the notion that one must be 'likable' to be an effective leader. I took the time to delve into that idea in the first page (which you likely didn't bother to read).

originally posted by: okrian
Now if we only had an example of how someone who treats people with absolutely no respect, can't tell the truth to save their life, spends the bulk of their time demonizing others - then cries how they are the victim, were president. If we could only have a 'leader' that is disliked by most of the country and the world universally, then we could see whether it ends up being good for Americans, and America, or not.

Oh wait.

I think it's the difference between adults and children . Adults understand that what a person does to help them is far more important than having them say nice things.

Children on the other hand will reject what is good for them and get in a windowless van with a complete stranger if they offer them candy.

I really dislike President Harris...

originally posted by: Somekindofwizard

originally posted by: okrian
Now if we only had an example of how someone who treats people with absolutely no respect, can't tell the truth to save their life, spends the bulk of their time demonizing others - then cries how they are the victim, were president. If we could only have a 'leader' that is disliked by most of the country and the world universally, then we could see whether it ends up being good for Americans, and America, or not.

Oh wait.

I think it's the difference between adults and children . Adults understand that what a person does to help them is far more important than having them say nice things.

Children on the other hand will reject what is good for them and get in a windowless van with a complete stranger if they offer them candy.

Couldn't have phrased that better myself.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Uh-oh, that post probably just accrued 42 demerits against your social credit score.

Keep that up, and you'll be on the bus to the Reeducation Camps.

It's not so much that they're going to be likable. It's more that they're going to be sympathetic and have at least some understanding of what the lives of the people are like that they're representing.

Trump, for instance, is a nearly textbook narcissist. He only cares about how a particular thing affects him, not anybody else. He doesn't know what anyone else's life is like, and doesn't care. The only thing he cares about when it comes to other people - ordinary folks like us - is how his image looks to them, and how much money can he get from them. Once you stop paying attention to him or writing him checks, you're dirt to him. He doesn't even know how to pretend to be sympathetic and understanding. When he's out of the White House, he's probably not going to be personally helping build houses for low-income families.

Nothing wrong with strong leadership. But even one of our oldest stories, the Epic of Gilgamesh, tells of a strong, bold leader who basically had very little respect or appreciation for the average person, and has to go through all kinds of trials and tests to learn not to be such a total jackhole. Even thousands of years ago, it was understood that a strong leader must also be able to relate to and sympathize with others.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I won't dispute your point about "relatability", when it comes to Trump.

That said....Trump was a very wealthy man before he ever entered the White House. A number of the previous POTUS were NOT wealthy upon taking office, however, after leaving office, their net worth increased dramatically.

Does that not bother you?

I know Trump probably has very little empathy for the "common man", but Trump was wealthy before he entered the Oval Office, and he'll be wealthy after he exits. I don't worry worry about those sort of people, when it comes to corruption. I worry about people that profit significantly from holding public office...

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened
a reply to: Blue Shift
Does that not bother you?

No, I don't care for politicians who see their office as a way to put as much money into their pockets as possible. But if you think that also wasn't a consideration for Trump, you don't understand what bad shape his finances were before he ran. He was not doing well, which is one of the reasons he refused to show his financial statements to anyone.

I would be all for a presidency where all you get is room and board, free Air Force One rides, a snappy wardrobe, and all the hot dogs you can eat. And if somebody tries to slip you a few million bucks to push something like, say, building a big wall somewhere, you can't take it without getting the boot. That might help to keep the presidential gold-diggers out of office. Maybe. If we can track their finances good enough.

Unfortunately, money is the grease that moves the wheels in Washington, and there's a lot of it. So we can either elect rich (or "poor rich") people into office, or we can try to find people who maybe have some kind of moral or ethical aversion to stuffing their pockets with PAC money or opening up the Treasury doors to their cronies.

Either way, I think we can both agree that something needs to happen with the political system in this country so that its primary purpose isn't to make rich people richer and poor people dead.

Jimmy carter was clearly and arguably the nicest guy to ever sit in the oval office... he was not an effective national leader.

Being nice only works if everyone is playing by the same rules.

They don't have to be, I'm sure it helps though, to be relatable as well. And one can be decisive and gruff without being a whole lot of other things. Sometimes life IS a popularity contest, rub people the wrong way, and...

The cult of personality.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Jimmy carter was clearly and arguably the nicest guy to ever sit in the oval office... he was not an effective national leader.

Being nice only works if everyone is playing by the same rules.

He was nice, truly a good human, but weak. A good leader need to be multidimensional.