The Western world lacks leaders you actually want to follow?

[Gimlix]

Im extremely baffled by that statement, Geert Wilders should be kicked/banished/stateless, that guy is just... ugh

Dangerous, Unstable , abit like Boris Johnson in that regard that if he gets the power he cant do anything at all, if he wants do something he needs the ''Eerste Kamer'' behind him, but seeing thats never the case, he needs to abolish it, which is a rather undemocratic action to take, possibly angering the EU and NATO.

Maybe we need someone dangerous and unstable to rule NL or EU in fact that is. EU is turning into the land of the sissy who is bowing down to the islamic culture.
If i was in command i would have never let that happen. I would not go full hitler and kill them all, but boarding most of the islamic/arab out of EU would be a big option i would take.

[Theodarzna]

You know, someone you can rally behind in bad times? Someone that actually has a vision for the Western world and it's societies? Not someone that simply reacts to events (and often also poorly)

There arent any in Europe and neither will there be one in the US any time soon (no matter who wins).
It's kinda depressing really, I think we could really use one or more in the years to come.

What do you think?

I think I can explain the relative lack of anyone who can be called a "leader," and its essentially that we have people doing the leading who are in essence Management or Managerial in style. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man," has had a tremendous impact on the elite classes and in culture in general. What he argued was "that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." Which is a pretty bold argument to make, but in it it creates a kind of self defeating mentality.

If we have attained the last and final form of all human organisation and from here until the end of humans there shall be no more changes, this is the world and it shall forever be, then really Democracy is somewhat unneeded as no further input is actually necessary. If everything is effectively perfect and without flaw or ability to be perfected than all one needs are technocratic managers to be in charge, people who "deal with problems and create optimal solutions," since democratic input would suggest plausible flaws, an actual leader is theoretically not needed and the elite classes absolutely revolt at such an idea because in their minds no such thing is needed, everything is (to them) already perfect.

[Deleted]

You know, someone you can rally behind in bad times? Someone that actually has a vision for the Western world and it's societies? Not someone that simply reacts to events (and often also poorly)

There arent any in Europe and neither will there be one in the US any time soon (no matter who wins).
It's kinda depressing really, I think we could really use one or more in the years to come.

What do you think?

What makes you think anyone in the world has leaders worth following?

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

Hahaha! As if anyone else has higher morals or values.

[Theodarzna]

@Deruyter, actually let me expand on my original first point...

I think I can explain the relative lack of anyone who can be called a "leader," and its essentially that we have people doing the leading who are in essence Management or Managerial in style. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man," has had a tremendous impact on the elite classes and in culture in general. What he argued was "that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." Which is a pretty bold argument to make, but in it it creates a kind of self defeating mentality.

If we have attained the last and final form of all human organisation and from here until the end of humans there shall be no more changes, this is the world and it shall forever be, then really Democracy is somewhat unneeded as no further input is actually necessary. If everything is effectively perfect and without flaw or ability to be perfected than all one needs are technocratic managers to be in charge, people who "deal with problems and create optimal solutions," since democratic input would suggest plausible flaws, an actual leader is theoretically not needed and the elite classes absolutely revolt at such an idea because in their minds no such thing is needed, everything is (to them) already perfect.

What many are missing here is that in its truest form countries, particularly the US, the idea of a Liberal Democracy is somewhat of a lie, The United States is an oligarchy with some ritualised observances of Democracy and Liberalism but it is not a real Democracy, and I'd suspect neither is any western country. This is important because the US is the geopolitical High King of Earth and even we do not actually practice a really Liberal Democracy. No country wants leaders because leaders tend to be about change, and if you are from the powerful classes there is zero need for change, revisions or doing anything differently.

Why the west has no leaders is because The West is effectively a lie and parody of itself. We are allegedly the land of Liberal Democracy when at best we are Oligarchical and mostly a Managed Technocracy. We may or may not be a "Free Market," society, but even then that is as much a lie as any as previous and current big players can use the might of law to secure power for all time.

Leaders are not something the power classes want. Leaders imply change, and if you believe everything is perfect, than change is substantially bad in their mind.