The Western world lacks leaders you actually want to follow?

[Tijuana]

You mean the text you added after I had already replied to you? You aren't very good at the dishonesty part and probably should give it up.

Regardless a simple google search would provide a cite supporting your claims if they existed. You can hold onto your beliefs and feelings all you want. They simply aren't true. And if you are interested in a discussion stop making false claims. Your claims are based on ignorance or dishonesty and neither speaks well of you.

Why do you care so much what I think? Why are you always obsessively posting in these back and forths? Do you ever actually discuss anything here?

[Pangean]

Why do you care so much what I think? Why are you always obsessively posting in these back and forths? Do you ever actually discuss anything here?

I don't care what you think. I simply pointed out that your claim was wrong and demonstrated such, and watched you try to hand wave it away. Obsessive? LOL. I am as obsessive as you since I am simply replying to your replies to me.

[Cosmic Janitor]

The whole world does, we are just aware of it .

[Total Crica]

If there is no one you wish to follow, follow the best option or be a leader, otherwise you will simply walk alone...

[May90]

And this, is why we are in trouble.

Forbid that we have sources of inspirations and those to look up to.

You need leaders. You need people to inspire the masses.

If you can't rely on yourself and your own judgment, then leaders will only sway you to their way of thinking: not inspire you, but brainwash you. And if you can, then you don't need leaders.

[Underverse]

There are some. They're rare. Warren right now is probably my favorite American politician, though I know that's not saying much; she barely makes it above neutral.

Presidential candidates? Disgusting. That interview with Trump and Pence was like a millstone on my brain. Idiocracy is well on its way.

[Reeve]

No, thats not at all the same thing. The law forces them to give up their power or at least accept that voters might give the power to someone else after 4 years or even earlier if they misbehave.

Give someone absolute power and the people won't get it back, in most cases.

Washington could easily have seized absolute power. He had the army to back him as well, but chose to give that power up. That's actually how Cincinnati got its name, actually was an homage to President Washington and the historical comparisons to Cincinnatus. But even Cincinnatus wasn't the first and certainly not the last Roman dictator to give up their power. It was the rule, not the exception, all the way up to the time of Julius Caesar. There are double digits of Roman dictators who voluntarily gave up their power.

[Damajin]

God forbid that people are inspired by actual good ideas.

Good ideas exemplified in good leaders is obviously the pinnacle and ultimate aim. Good ideas absent good people implementing and representing them often either stagnate or are never realized.

The thing to avoid is the cult of personality, not good leaders.

[Dezerte]

On social mobility, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

Should be plenty of citations available at the bottom. (Spoiler: The US does not score very well).

[Damajin]

If you can't rely on yourself and your own judgment, then leaders will only sway you to their way of thinking: not inspire you, but brainwash you. And if you can, then you don't need leaders.

Society needs leaders or it becomes rootless and fickle, which we see all around us today. The concern about brainwashing is a valid one but that's the extreme end, the concern of those wanting to avoid the cult of personality trap. Good leaders grounded in modesty and finite aims aren't ever a concern in this regard and thus are what we want and yearn to. Self reliance and judgment being very admirable doesn't negate the necessity for having quality leaders to make important decisions after both outside input and their own personal reflection on the matters at hand. There isn't a single person alive that is so smart they don't need someone elses' guidance in some matter.

[May90]

Society needs leaders or it becomes rootless and fickle, which we see all around us today. The concern about brainwashing is a valid one but that's the extreme end, the concern of those wanting to avoid the cult of personality trap. Good leaders grounded in modesty and finite aims aren't ever a concern in this regard and thus are what we want and yearn to. Self reliance and judgment being very admirable doesn't negate the necessity for having quality leaders to make important decisions after both outside input and their own personal reflection on the matters at hand. There isn't a single person alive that is so smart they don't need someone elses' guidance in some matter.

If you mean leaders as in influential people, then there are such already. Personally, I am a big fan of Nick Vujicic and his ideology of compassion (although I am not religious and don't buy his whole "thank the God" thing), as well as Tony Robbins with his ideas on "Everything is possible, as long as you control your mind and your mind doesn't control you" (although a lot of his new age "techniques" seem to be nonsensical). There are a lot of people inspiring millions all around the world.

Or did you mean people like Martin Luther King Jr., leading masses after them and actually making change in the society? I don't think we need such people, because, more often than not, they end up doing more harm than good. MLK changed our society for the better, but, for example, Malcolm X in his earlier ages actually only contributed to racism and ignited once again already burning problems.

[Damajin]

If you mean leaders as in influential people, then there are such already. Personally, I am a big fan of Nick Vujicic and his ideology of compassion (although I am not religious and don't buy his whole "thank the God" thing), as well as Tony Robbins with his ideas on "Everything is possible, as long as you control your mind and your mind doesn't control you" (although a lot of his new age "techniques" seem to be nonsensical). There are a lot of people inspiring millions all around the world.

Or did you mean people like Martin Luther King Jr., leading masses after them and actually making change in the society? I don't think we need such people, because, more often than not, they end up doing more harm than good. MLK changed our society for the better, but, for example, Malcolm X in his earlier ages actually only contributed to racism and ignited once again already burning problems.

We need both, but the key factor is the willingness to step back from what they do so in essence they don't become that 'bigger than the movement/issue' cult thing that others have expressed. Leaders encompass all sorts of traits but the one most necessary to avoid becoming oppressive is humility and eagerness to step away when appropriate. The Tao te Ching is loaded with passages dealing with exactly these types of leaders, how they should be and how far they should go which to sum it up is to say: as far as necessary, modestly and not a step farther.

[Hotmail]

I dislike the idea of a leader in the first place since it enables someone to take credit for the effort of others.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

The problem with the West, summed up, is moral decay.

At least in the west, the people can actually vote in a system that generally is the most credible.

[Yvaelle]

I dislike the idea of a leader in the first place since it enables someone to take credit for the effort of others.

Good leadership is about giving credit, not taking it - it's about sharing a vision that others can believe in - then letting them figure out how to enact it.

[Fruujik]

It`s not that we don`t have leaders we want to follow - I don`t and I think a lot of people can agree.

What we don`t have is the kind of person who knew how to properly conceptualize the problem, speak about *omitted* honestly. And make a moral case for their positions.

When is the last time someone in the West came up with a speech and delivery like of that Reagan after Challenger blew up?
Religous rhethoric aside, I love that one. Could name a dozen or so speeches from American/European leaders from the 1950-1970 period.

Now we have... Obama the Inept saying that some black kid who got shot justifiably could`ve been his son?

[Aggrophobic]

Washington could easily have seized absolute power. He had the army to back him as well, but chose to give that power up. That's actually how Cincinnati got its name, actually was an homage to President Washington and the historical comparisons to Cincinnatus. But even Cincinnatus wasn't the first and certainly not the last Roman dictator to give up their power. It was the rule, not the exception, all the way up to the time of Julius Caesar. There are double digits of Roman dictators who voluntarily gave up their power.

I'm sure. Lets give up all rights to vote and hand out power to one man then. What could possibly go wrong?

[Reeve]

I'm sure. Lets give up all rights to vote and hand out power to one man then. What could possibly go wrong?

I never said we should. I'm just setting the historical record straight.

[Yvaelle]

The type of people who strive to be "leaders" tend to be the type that don't make good leaders in the first place.

At least, in politics. If not everywhere else.

Often true of most everywhere yes, the problem is we need to subtract the glamour and prestige of leadership from the role - that's when you get leaders who have actual skills who want to step up and lead, not just people who want to put their name in giant gold block letters across our nations.

[Zarc]

Yeah, we should be more like Russia, Turkey or North Korea. /s

People shouldn't follow leaders.
Politicians are here to represent ideals and movements.

This. I have voted for the same small liberal party for years, during this time there has been two different party leaders and I haven't liked either of them. But I don't vote for a person. I vote for a party that represent my views. I also don't feel "betrayed" when all they have in their manifesto isn't realized before the next election, because I am not a child that doesn't understand that when you only represent 5-10% of voters you can't have your way in every or even most issues, you'll have to compromise with others. Doesn't mean their positions changes or that some other parties positions suddenly matches my opinions better than theirs. I rather like bland, grey leaders because the charismatic types often scare me because I feel people follow them like sheep rather than for real rational reasons. This is especially true when they stand for ideals that are complete opposite to my own, such as those of Donald Trump. In him and his followers I see a cult of personality forming around him as a person, and that is worrisome. I feel that leaders like Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau are both very charismatic and inspirational leaders and I love that about them, but just as I would've supported either of them had I lived in the US or Canada respectively I would have supported Tim Farron of the LibDems had I lived in the UK, and I don't like him very much just as I don't like the leader of the liberal party that I vote for in Sweden. But in the end that is not important at all. Policy positions, issues and ideology is.