Most Americans lack confidence in leaders - poll

BOSTON (Reuters) - Seventy-three percent of Americans lack confidence in their leaders and a majority believe the country would be better off with more women in power, a survey showed on Tuesday.

The survey by Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the U.S. News & World Report also showed that 66 percent of Americans believe the United States faces a leadership crisis.

The release of the poll comes as President George W. Bush is struggling to stem a slide in popularity caused by the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war and soaring gasoline prices.

The nationwide telephone survey of 1,374 adults, taken from September 13 to September 23, covered all levels of U.S. leaders -- from the White House to Congress and state and local governments.

It showed that 65 percent of Americans are upbeat about the future of the country's leadership and expect better leaders in the future.

The poll also showed that 64 percent believe the country would be better off if more women occupied leadership positions, and perhaps surprisingly more men than women believe this -- 69 percent to 61 percent.

Source:
Reut ers

Its interesting to see this Numbers and then watch the president Bush start taking actions like...:

NEWS: USA Admin Seeks To Exclude CIA From Detainee Torture laws

I wonder how much longer can this administration wander around and do everything they want, to American people and the People of the World, and get away with it.

66% out of 1,374 adults isnt that much.

I got 67.5% percent on my last test result, does that mean I am doing "mostly" ok?

That’s a pretty big number since 30% of our population is so brain washed into thinking republicans are god’s gift to humanity. If they dropped the constitution tomorrow and declared Bush Fuher 30% of America would dance in the streets. Say’s a lot for our educational system not teaching people how to think for themselves. Maybe the art’s and music funding being dropped has something to do with that? Or just evolution is dropping the Common sense part of the brain.

Originally posted by Souljah
BOSTON (Reuters) - Seventy-three percent of Americans lack confidence in their leaders and a majority believe the country would be better off with more women in power, a survey showed on Tuesday.

Well, I think in general people lack confidence in their leaders whether it be America, the UK or any other nation, leaders take the people who elected them for granted, lets be honest they can get away with murder if they really want as long as their good at selling propaganda.

Interesting, however I think it all comes down to the person, rather than whether they are male or female, I do think we (the world in general) would be better off if women held more political and social positions of power.


[edit on 26-10-2005 by UK Wizard]

I'm not surprised by such polls because evidently a bad leader will always be a bad leader. I believe there is multiple reasons for the lack of confidence in the Bushie Administration and the Americans are not happy with it. The "War on Terrorism" that fueled much hate from the Americans and also the slow response of the Administration to handle the hurricanes that struck U.S such as Hurricane Katrina and the newest Hurricane Wilma.

All I can say is : Hope Bushie goes down.

Originally posted by devilwasp
66% out of 1,374 adults isnt that much.

I got 67.5% percent on my last test result, does that mean I am doing "mostly" ok?

66% is two thirds - and is considered a BIG majority at elections.

And when you get 68% at your test, you are doing OK!

George Bush is in office, this is no surprise.

Some even lack faith in the United States.

Vermonters Move to Secede From USA
peakoilanarchy.blogspot.com...

... Organizers of the convention say it has two objectives: First, to raise the level of awareness of Vermonters of the feasibility of independence as a viable alternative to a nation which has lost its moral authority and is unsustainable. And second, to provide an example and a process for other states and nations which may be seriously considering separatism, secession, independence, and similar devolutionary strategies. The Second Vermont Republic describes itself as "a peaceful, democratic, grassroots, libertarian populist movement committed to the return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic as it once was between 1777 and 1791."

Earlier this year, Vermont secession activists published their opening salvo, the Middlebury Institute Letter. It declared: "We believe that, of the options open to those who would dissent from the actions and institutions of a government grown too big and unwieldy and its handmaiden corporate sponsors grown too powerful and corrupt, the only comprehensive and practical one is some form of separatism. Exploring this option is not a step to be taken lightly, because there are established forces that will hamper and resist, and yet it is a legal and viable enterprise, squarely in the American tradition ...

I think we should govern ourselves and do away with government. I'd feel safer.

Originally posted by Souljah
66% is two thirds - and is considered a BIG majority at elections.

Yeah but mostly at elections , they have a little more epople than 1,374 adults .

And when you get 68% at your test, you are doing OK!

Not in my opinion and definatly not over here..

Originally posted by dgtempe
I think we should govern ourselves and do away with government. I'd feel safer.

Thats the basic ideal of comunism and anarchy really..
Then we disolve into gang war..


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

That alleged low "lack of confidence" is still higher than the last seven presidential administrations.




seekerof

No effence against women, but do you really think it would make a difference putting more women in charge?

I mean take a look at Thatcher, I grew up with her in power.
She did more to destroy the British working class (it's backbone) and it's industry (she closed mining, steel and shipping, thus taking away the living of thousands) than ANY PM before her.

The only way we will be better off is to put Monkeys in charge
They couldn't do any worse.

Koko for president!!

Originally posted by Seekerof
That alleged low "lack of confidence" is still higher than the last seven presidential administrations.

seekerof

But at what stage of the Administration being in power are you comparing it to?

I have to admit, I don't put a lot of faith in these surveys whichever way they point. Public opinion is a fickle animal that can change at the drop of a hat.
Even though an opinion poll may show a government being at a low, it only takes one little thing for confidence to rise again or vice versa. About the only time one of these things can be trusted is if it shows a sustainable opinion. Even after that, the poll has to be looked at in detail - taking in the social and geographical issues associated with it.

They are useful if you want to argue a point though!!!



[edit on 27-10-2005 by Leveller]

Originally posted by ANOK
No effence against women, but do you really think it would make a difference putting more women in charge?

I mean take a look at Thatcher, I grew up with her in power.
She did more to destroy the British working class (it's backbone) and it's industry (she closed mining, steel and shipping, thus taking away the living of thousands) than ANY PM before her.

The only way we will be better off is to put Monkeys in charge

They couldn't do any worse.

Koko for president!!

Well I think of a few PM's who managed to doa bit worse..
One managed to get several million kiled...

Originally posted by devilwasp

Then we disolve into gang war..

That I'm sorry to say is an uneducated asumption perpetuated by the state to justify the presence of over bearing authority.

Gangs and other unsocial elements are a result of authortarian society, not the other way around.

In the very few times in history where people have been allowed to run their own lives, without the interference of governmental authority, have actually worked very succesfully. Look at the history of the 1936 Spanish revolution.

Look what happens during social or natural upheavels. We drop all our competitive selfish conditioning and work together, until the gov steps in and screws it all up.

Don't sell yourself or your fellow man short, we are far more able to govern our own lives than you seem to think. Gangs and criminals are, regardless of what the authorities want you to believe, the minority. They wouldn't survive too long in a society that oposes them instead of one that perpetuates them as it does now. Crime=income in a capitilist society. Present authorities have no desier to stop crime at all, just to control it to their own ends.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Well I think of a few PM's who managed to doa bit worse..
One managed to get several million kiled...

Killed, or a life of poverty in a run down crime ridden northern British city with no future?

Is life worth it at any cost? Is life better than death when that life is full of missery with no hope?

How many are dead from rampant crime cause by poverty?
Are those people living in unemployment hell really alive?

Originally posted by ANOK
That I'm sorry to say is an uneducated asumption perpetuated by the state to justify the presence of over bearing authority.

Really?
So are you saying that we ( the human race) wouldnt band together in small groups and become "packs" or "gangs"?
Or would we all become loners?

Gangs and other unsocial elements are a result of authortarian society, not the other way around.

Not really, "gangs" or"packs" or "groups" can and are created when there is no authoratarian society as well.

In the very few times in history where people have been allowed to run their own lives, without the interference of governmental authority, have actually worked very succesfully. Look at the history of the 1936 Spanish revolution.

A few cases does not support your theory IMO.

Look what happens during social or natural upheavels. We drop all our competitive selfish conditioning and work together, until the gov steps in and screws it all up.

Didnt screw up in 1940's for us..infact seemed to "hold" us together.

Don't sell yourself or your fellow man short, we are far more able to govern our own lives than you seem to think. Gangs and criminals are, regardless of what the authorities want you to believe, the minority. They wouldn't survive too long in a society that oposes them instead of one that perpetuates them as it does now. Crime=income in a capitilist society. Present authorities have no desier to stop crime at all, just to control it to their own ends.

Yes we can govern our own lives very well, its the question of how we interact.
Think about it, would order remain in the UK if we dissolved to anarchy?
Hell no, I can think of atleast 3 people able to insite a mob together.

Originally posted by ANOK
In the very few times in history where people have been allowed to run their own lives, without the interference of governmental authority, have actually worked very succesfully. Look at the history of the 1936 Spanish revolution.

Over 1 million dead?

I don't think it's as easy as you make it out to be. It's also a paradox. When people are allowed to run their own lives, the first thing they do is set up a governmental authority!!! Isn't that exactly how the USA came into being?

As for Communism, wasn't that just a gang system? The people at the top had their own gang and everyone else was left to run around supporting them? Look at the only "communist" society left in the world today - North Korea. The state itself is the gang and it is at war with it's people. It fights this war by trying to retain complete control over them.

No opinion polls on the government's performance for them to participate in. And even if there were, the results would be doctored to show 100% compliance with the state system.

Incidentally, the authorities do stress that criminal elements are the minorities in our Western societies. They hold their own surveys which supposedly show that they are winning the so-called war on crime. They use this as a platform to get elected and, once in power, to carry out further changes to the justice system.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Really?
So are you saying that we ( the human race) wouldnt band together in small groups and become "packs" or "gangs"?
Or would we all become loners?

No I'm not but gangs and loners per say are not the problem are they?
The problem is crime and drugs. Capitilism perpetuates crime. Society based on competition creates crime.

Not really, "gangs" or"packs" or "groups" can and are created when there is no authoratarian society as well.

No argument there, see above answer. But in a non consumer, competitve capital based society then gangs would be called cllective cooperative groups.

A few cases does not support your theory IMO.

Yes a FEW, nothing is ever perfect or 100%. There will always be exceptions to the rule.

Didnt screw up in 1940's for us..infact seemed to "hold" us together.

You don't think so eh? Read some real history and not holyweird Amerika won the war single handed BS.

Yes we can govern our own lives very well, its the question of how we interact.
Think about it, would order remain in the UK if we dissolved to anarchy?
Hell no, I can think of atleast 3 people able to insite a mob together.

Well the idea is not to disolve into Anarchy (at least not in the sence you're using the word) or better put disolve into chaos.
Again look at Spain, they did not disolve into chaos but worked very well collectively and cooperatvely.
Do you really think that government keeps scoiety from becoming chaotic?
Just look at the TV or read a paper, the World is full of chaos, war, death, suffering, exploitation of the weak and vunerable by the very powers that are suposedly keeping us from killing each other.
If you really look at Human nature and the way things are controlled, it's the control of government that keeps us all in a constant state of chaos and disorder in order to justify their existance. When people tire of government what do they do? They start wars, artificialy create crime, create artificial economic slumps etc...All to justify their existance.

And no I'm not so naive as to believe we could just do away with government overnight. I also don't believe revolution would work either. Situations like that usualy just replace one master with another.
No it takes education, de-conditioning, the realisation that we do have the power to control and govern our own lives.

What's the biggest hurdle to that goal? People not having any faith in the power of thyself! Go around saying it can't be done and it won't.

"You've gotta, you've gotta sense your own strength"~unknown

Originally posted by Leveller
I don't think it's as easy as you make it out to be. It's also a paradox. When people are allowed to run their own lives, the first thing they do is set up a governmental authority!!! Isn't that exactly how the USA came into being?
m.
Incidentally, the authorities do stress that criminal elements are the minorities in our Western societies. They hold their own surveys which supposedly show that they are winning the so-called war on crime. They use this as a platform to get elected and, once in power, to carry out further changes to the justice system.

Who said anything about communism? You'll get no argument form me there.
Any form of authoritarian governmental control is wrong IMO.
"Left wing, right wing, you can stuff the lot" Steve Ignorant/Crass
Think outsdie the old box. We are supplied these political labels to keep us thinking there is nothing else.

Your comment on crime is corect to a point, are they really winning the "war on crime" or is it that crime is not really there to start with and this "war" is just another excuse to take peoples money (taxes). Another excuse to justify their existance, to protect us from ourselves?

And who said it would be easy? Nothing is easy. Everything is a struggle.
But should that stop us?

And yes the U.S. did start with a government, but do we still have that same government now? Far from it, or maybe not?
And don't be so naive as to think the U.S. was started by a bunch of poor immigrants. Far from it.

And no, Humans do not automatically start governments. Look at history, governments of today are the same group of people who started governments in the beginning. Not you and me, be sure!

Government was enacted with vicious opposition from the people. Don't believe what you learn in high school history. Remember history is always written by the victor and the victor in this case was not the people, it was the wealthy ruling land owners who used to put the peasants in dungeons and claim land and property as their own with no legitimate claim.
Why were the American Natives almost wiped out? So the ruling classes could take their land and put the peasants (us) to work for them.
Same with the Aborigines in Aus and the Black Africans and the white poor in Europe. But you don't learn that in history class do you?

History does show us all the lies and deceit if you care to really look beyond what we're given.