Leadership, Democracy & A More Thoughtful Public
This course was one of the most challenging courses I took as a member of the Interdisciplinary Honors Program, due to the detailed reflection required. This fall, leadership was put into a new context for me. It went from something I felt comfortable with on a small, personal involvement, scale, to something that I can realize the complexities of on a political level. Over the past 10 weeks, I have grown to see leadership as not only something we can choose to value, but something that we need to value. Having proper and informed leadership is instrumental to creating the best possible society. We need leaders effective enough to get people to consider all aspects of a situation and who can build a well-considered approach worthy of support. It is not enough in this complex world to simply accept the first thing they are told as true or rely on easy, convenient positions.
...
Final Reflection
When you are a student searching through the course catalogue and deciding what courses to take the following quarter, you are looking for one for one of three things: a class that fulfills a program requirement, a “guaranteed 4.0” to balance out the GPA of the STEM classes you mistakenly took freshman fall quarter, or a class that you are actually interested in. For this course, it was a combination of the 1st and the 3rd. Yes, I am required to take Honors classes if I intend to graduate with interdisciplinary honors. However, leadership has always been a concept that I have been drawn to. Throughout high school and college, I have always been involved in leadership and looked for new opportunities to develop my own leadership abilities. In high school I was elected Vice President of my class, chosen to be captain of my soccer team, and served on a committee in charge of a ‘Link Crew’ program that paired upperclassmen with incoming freshmen in order to help them adapt to the high school community. When I got to college, I knew I wanted to continue my search for leadership opportunities. As a freshman, I took on a leadership position in my sorority, joined an RSO devoted to creating leaders and tackling the main issues in the Greek community, and enrolled in a leadership theory class. This year, I have taken on a staff position as the director of marketing in my RSO and have been chosen to teach a quiz section for the leadership theory class winter quarter. Both these positions will provide me a new vantage point for seeing leadership. Instead of taking on the role of the student, entering new situations to learn and develop my own leadership with direction from others, I will be in the role of the teacher, helping shape the growth and development of others. I expect that this role will help me develop my own abilities and knowledge as well. Through these experiences I’ve begun to see leadership as one of my strengths.
However, this course put leadership into a new context for me. It went from something I felt comfortable with on a small, personal involvement scale, to something that I can realize the complexities of on a political level. Over the past 10 weeks, I have grown to see leadership as not only something we can choose to value, but something that we need to value. Having proper and informed leadership is instrumental to being able to create the best possible society. We need leaders effective enough to get people to consider all aspects of a situation and who can build a well-considered approach worthy of support. It is not enough in this complex world to simply accept the first thing they are told as true or rely on easy, convenient positions.
One theme I found repeating over and over in this course was that there are many tensions and variables that associated with executing effective leadership and creating the desired political culture. Soder said several times throughout the course that “everything exists in relation to everything else.” It’s all about finding the proper balance between the several variables in society. However, one of the things that I have learned is that none of this can be done easily. There are so many factors that have to come together in just the right way for one to be an effective leader and have the type of functioning government that we wish for. I have always been someone to crave logical reasoning and clear direct answers so it is very difficult for me to admit that there is no concrete formula to an ideal, democratic, sustainable society. There is no perfect balance between all possible practices and approaches. All societies are framed in different contexts, and thus, require a balance of interrelated variables unique to them.
In this course, we have been introduced to many variables and tensions that have to be balanced in just the right way for leadership to operate effectively. You cannot have too much of one because you may risk having too little of another. I think it is important to consider these tensions and variables and come to understand them in order to decide how they might be combined or balanced to best fit the society we are striving to have.
The first set of tensions I would like to discuss are the ones having to do with balancing freedom and order in society. In chapter 4 of The Language of Leadership, Soder listed “the recognition of the tension between freedom and order,” as one of his several conditions for democracy. “If we maximize freedom and ignore order, we end up with anarchy. But if in our desire for order, we move beyond reasonable order to oppression, then we are no better off.” Instead of going entirely one way or another, as Soder illustrates the flaws of in this quote, it is important for us to find a stabilizing point between the two, where people are capable of exercising their own freedoms, but are not doing so to the extent that they are causing harm to themselves, others or society. But what is the right amount of freedom? We pride ourselves on being a free country, yet is it true freedom if when one chooses to exercises their freedoms they are infringing on the rights of another? Is it okay if one person’s freedom of speech intrudes on another’s freedom of religion or their inalienable right to equality? There is no simple answer to this question because everyone will have a different opinion. For example, our own Constitution seeks to include many factors and balance them. But the challenge of doing so is indicated by the work of the Supreme Court which has been called on to interpret and balance competing factors throughout our history. People who are typically in the majority often find small compromises to be a large infringement on their rights. And people who have to fight for their basic right to equality on a daily basis may see these smaller infringements as a sacrifice necessary for the greater good.
One of our readings that addressed the tension between freedom and order is chapter 5 of The Brothers Karamazov. In it, Ivan tells a story of Christ returning to Seville, performing miracles of heeling on the streets and ultimately being confronted by the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor. The Grand Inquisitor argues that by rejecting the three temptations that the devil presented to him, Christ had burdened the people by giving them more freedom than they are able to handle. While Christ saw freedom as a good thing for the people to have, the Grand Inquisitor is arguing in favor of stripping individual freedoms in favor of order because that is the only way people can be completely safe. With freedom comes great responsibility, and often a large amount of pressure, resulting in sadness. The Grand Inquisitor said, “there is nothing more seductive for man than the freedom of his conscience, but there is nothing more tormenting either.” I believe this to be true because without freedom of consciousness, we would not be able to experience the extremes of feelings, both good and bad, to the same extent. We would be similar to clones in that no person would have experiences unique from others. A sort of blissful ignorance would blanket the entire population. However, while this blissful ignorance serves as a relief from the torment of free choice, it also eliminates the chance of true happiness. This is where I disagree with the Grand Inquisitor. I think that without freedom to make their own decisions, to at least some extent, people would have no chance at true happiness and personal fulfillment. Our choices shape our lives and without the ability to make choices for ourselves, we would be unable to create a life that we are happy in. By not allowing people to be free, he is in turn removing the burden of decision making and the consequences associated with it. One could argue that he is creating a persuaded audience.
Freedom and order also come up in the discussion of despotism versus civic democracy. One of the arguments in favor of despotism is that it creates a more orderly society. When people are stripped of their freedoms, it is much easier to control their actions and thus much easier to offer protection to the entire population. However, there are many consequences of accepting this protection. Mainly, citizens of a despotic society are very limited in the area of information seeking. This is because the goal of a despotic society is to control how people see the world. The easiest way to do this is to control the information that people receive about the world. By controlling the flow of information, you are controlling the information your citizens have access to when forming their world views. People are less exposed to alternative views and contradictory facts making it easier to accept their situation. One thing that I noticed in the readings having to do with despotic and civic cultures is that when talking about the goals of civic cultures, safety and protection of citizens is rarely brought up. Safety of citizens is usually one of the arguments in favor of despotism. However, it is rarely cited as a component of democratic civic societies. Often, people believe that in a political climate you can either have individual freedom or government protection of citizens, not both. We see that trade off in our country in the arguments on the issue of gun control. The harm caused by guns is explained as a cost of personal rights to keep and bear arms. It is believed that citizens are at risk in societies where they possess certain freedoms because they are able to make decisions for themselves that may compromise their safety. However, near the end of chapter 4 of The Language of Leadership, Ralph Lerner indicated that you can, in fact, have both. He argues that enculturation of students through education will provide them with “the technical skills and moral lessons that might render the people safe and knowing guardians of their own liberty.” I agree with this strongly. It is possible for people to have both safety and freedom under a democratic civic political context. However, the people themselves are responsible for sustaining their safety and freedom. Cultural norms, societal expectations and education all play an important role in protecting safety and freedom. The role of education cannot be understated. Citizens must be educated and able to understand the political system, advocate for themselves and have discussions as a member of a more thoughtful public.
What is the difference between a persuaded audience and a more thoughtful public? To understand, I believe that it is necessary to break it down. Persuaded implies that the body of people has already come to a conclusion on an issue, that they lack personal opinion and do not necessarily consider all sides of an argument before making a decision. Audience implies that instead of being an active members of society, the population in question is acting as more of a bystander, one that needs to be convinced but will not contribute to the discussion. A member of a persuaded audience is not one to go out and seek alternative perspectives. They consider only the information that is given them to form their opinion. On the other hand, a more thoughtful public implies a group that thinks critically about a situation, considers all sides to a debate, as well as the consequences of different proposals. The members do not only listen, but they contribute to society. The difference between a persuaded audience and a more thoughtful public can be seen as the difference between passive compliance and outward skepticism or consent.
From this explanation, it seems clear that a more thoughtful public is far preferable to a persuaded audience. However, in reality we want both. In order to be a leader in a democracy you must have support of citizens to get to a point where you can accomplish something. This support comes from a persuaded audience, a group of people who are convinced that you will act in the best interest of the population and represent them in the decision making process. Beyond that, we also need a more thoughtful public. A more thoughtful public will participate in conversations, consider a variety of perspectives, and advocate for proposals that they believe will best serve our society. In short, they will be actively engaged in civic life. In order to have an effective civic democracy we should not think of this relationship as one or the other. If we had just a more thoughtful public and no persuaded audience, there would be so many differing opinions that it would be incredibly difficult to get anything done. On the other hand, it we had a persuaded audience but no thoughtful public then we would not be conducting and exchange of information and ideas in order to make decisions best for our civilization. With both a persuaded audience and a more thoughtful public we can conduct productive conversations with a variety of different topics while also coming to a decision and creating a plan for how to put our decision into action.
Another tension that is important to balance is the tension between satisfying group and individual needs. As Americans, we have a tendency to act in self-interest. That is simply a norm of democracy. However, this is not necessarily the best way to sustain our society in the long term. There needs to be a balance between acting in a way that will benefit ourselves individually and acting in a way that will benefit the society as a whole. As we see from the ongoing political arguments in this country, there is constant tension between individual interests and needs of many. We see this in the current tax debate in congress, which has become a policy to benefit the few, the already wealthy and business owners, over the many, middle class and less affluent citizens. In chapter 4 of The Language of Leadership, Soder says that we must recognize the need for E Pluribus Unum or “out of many, one.” A question we are constantly asking is “how do we satisfy individual needs while meeting the needs of the community?” It is important to remember we can’t do it all. We have limited resources. We have a limited amount of supplies, a limited amount of money, and, most importantly, a limited amount of time. So, who deserves the resources that we have? How should they be distributed? That is not up to any individual to decide. That is why we have a governing body. Our democracy allows people to share their needs and ultimately the representatives we elect determine how our limited public resources will be allocated.
The next thing that must be considered is the difference between being positive and being realistic. This tension was introduced in the epilogue to John Goodlad’s Romances with Schoolsas one of three perspectives that influence political action. Without positivity, if met with an obstacle, we would not try overcome it. Rather, we would be much too quick to admit defeat. In this argument, positivity equates with hope. If you have no hope to succeed, why keep trying? However, too much positivity also has its risks. Constant positivity would get in the way of determining what the best course of action would be. It can cause irrational or unjustified decision making. Sometimes recognizing that something is not going to work allows you to step back, reevaluate the situation, and return with a new course of action. In a leader, we often look for positivity. We characterize such a leader as being inspiring or motivating to others. A leader who is positive comes across much better than a leader who is overly realistic. Soder argues that we often believe positivity is a quality of good leadership and that “we want leaders who, when faced with difficulties and dangers, will positively assure us that all will come well, no matter what.” Often leaders will hide their personal negative feelings in order to keep up an appearance of optimism. However, this often leads to added stress for the leader, limits their opportunities for council, and results in the presentation of claims of what can be done with unrealistically low costs or consequences. We listen to campaign promises and decide our votes based on if we like what we hear. We rarely consider if what is being promised to us could actually happen, and if it does, what the possible repercussions could be.
The second of the three perspectives that influence political action that Soder introduced is the difference between the possible and the probable. Often people decide to take action based on what is probable rather than what is possible. However, it is important to be open to what is possible because if we do not consider it at all, we limit our abilities and aspirations. According to Soder “we take action on the basis of our calculation of the probable.” What are our odds of success? From my experience this is very true. As a population we are afraid of failure and are reserved in working outside our comfort zone. However, everything will seem improbable if we set a precedent of sticking to the traditional and refusing to change or reach for more. How are we supposed to move forward as a society without the willingness to take risks?
The tension very similar to that of the possible and the probable is finding balance between acting on probabilities and waiting for truths. This tension comes from the section of The Language of Leadership on information seeking. In the ideal world, before making a decision, you would have time to gather all possible information pertaining to a subject so that you can make the most effective decision with the least negative repercussions. However, in reality, we do not have that luxury. Information seeking takes time, and because of limited resources it is impractical to believe that we would be able to collect all information pertaining to a subject in a reasonable amount of time. The question here, is at what point in the decision making process should you halt information seeking, review what you have learned and make a decision. By now it should be no surprise that there is not a black and white answer to this question. In some scenarios, it is more important to have a willingness to act on reasoned probabilities instead of waiting for absolute truths that may or may not come. When the downside of a decision is especially bleak, it may require much more information before choosing. It is important for a leader to make calculated decisions based on reasoned probabilities, especially in a time sensitive situation. If a decision is delayed to long, you run the risk of missing your window, allowing the issue to escalate, or having the decision made for you.
The last of the three perspectives that influence political action is the extent to which you are willing to sacrifice your own idea to make it more actionable. As Soder explains, “people have to make your program theirs- in ways that will necessarily change your program.” To some extent, people need to adopt any proposed program as their own, creating a tension between program designers and implementers. Soder mentions throughout the epilogue, the tendency of the Center of Education Renewal to resolve conflicts with a détente. This is often the result because the tensions between various perspectives make it hard to make a concrete decision, one way or another. How much of your idea are you willing to sacrifice in order for it to be actionable? When you create something, it is incredibly hard to allow it to be altered. Every adjustment or criticism can feel like a personal attack against you. I’ll use writing a paper as an example. Say you have been writing a final paper for one of your classes and have just submitted it for peer review. You’ve spent days writing it, and finally feel pretty good about the work you have done. You hope to get your paper back with just a few comments and suggested changes. Even then, reading the comments can be hard. Your reviewer recommends you get rid of the analogy you worked so hard on. You make the edits for the sake of clarity. Even with some changes, the paper still effectively communicates your intentions. However, when you get back a paper, post revision, and the entire thing seems to be marked up with comment after comment written in red pen, then it can feel as though the entire essay is no longer your work. After enough changes, it can feel as though the integrity of the paper has been stripped. Similar to editing a paper, someone who tries to make changes to your idea is just trying to improve it. The fact that they want to make changes should, in fact, be taken as a compliment. They accepted that there were aspects, unique to your idea, that would be beneficial to society and worthy to be implemented. That, in itself, is something to be proud of. However, at some point, the changes begin to seem less of a revision to make your ideas easier to execute, and more of a structural realignment so that the idea no longer feels like it belongs to you. That line between simple revisions and a structural rewrite is different for everyone and it is different for every idea. It is up to an individual to determine where their line is and how much can be compromised without losing the essence of the ideas.
Similarly, we have to ask ourselves how much of an idea we are willing to change over time. Even after an idea has been implemented, it is subject to change. Something that works originally will not continue to work forever. The circumstances and assumptions that formed the foundation of a plan change over time. If we do not continue to adapt it to the evolving context of the world we live in, ideas or programs can become ineffective and out of date. This is the concept of interrelated variables that we discussed in class. As context changes, in order to keep some things the same, we must change others. For example, imagine you are in a sailboat traveling up a lake. Halfway across the lake, the wind picks up in a direction that will lead you off course. In order to stay on your original path, you must change the angle of the sail. Once you adjust, you can continue on your original course across the lake or even improve your route. When you have something, a program or a project, that you would like to maintain overtime, you must decide what elements are essential to keep. These essentials should be the main points of the program, things that it could not be effective without. Everything else can be sacrificed in order to maintain these essentials and sustain your program or project into the future.
Another barrier to action I gathered from Soder’s epilogue was the tension between using language that has become popularized and using academic jargon. I picked up on this when Soder mentions academics’ reluctance to “engage in the world of advertising and PR.” A quote from Robertson Davies that suggests academics fear being accused of popularization, “McVarish lectured dully; his stuff was good but he was too much the scholar to make interesting, lest somebody should accuse him of popularization.” This explains how they do not want to be seen compromising the academic integrity of their information to reach a wider audience. However, I do not think that academics should fear popularization so much. There are ways to make information more engaging and understandable to a wider audience without compromising its scholarly integrity. In fact, I think that, to some extent, popularization can be a good thing. By making something more engaging and easy to understand, it will make educating oneself in new topics less intimidating to those who do not already have a background. A simply presented introduction to a topic can serve as a gateway to developing a more complex understanding of it, leading to a more educated, and less apathetic public in the long run.
Another idea that intrigued me in the final chapter of The Language of Leadership is the tension between reality and perception. At the very end of the chapter a quote from Anthony Powell caught my attention. It said: “it is not what happens to people that is significant, but what they think happens to them.” This quote suggests the high power of perception. Individuals possess their own truths. These truths could be part of a belief system, observations of the world around them, or scientifically gathered facts. Even if one’s individual truths cannot be proven by fact, they are nonetheless trusted and believed by the person who they belong to, and thus determine their actions. This helps explain a lot about the current state of political discourse in this country and the resistance and contempt to alternate viewpoints. It is not a surprise that people act on what they believe to be true. However, I often still find it surprising when people act in opposition to something I consider to be true because their belief system or perception of reality is different from my own. I think that this is something people need to take into consideration more as a leader and in politics. If people were more understanding of why people have opinions that differ from their own, then I believe they would be more willing to have a productive discussion that involves both listening and sharing their own ideas. In this book, we have identified how important an open dialogue is to creating a free and open democracy. Because of this, being open to the idea that people possess their own unique set of truths would be a good starting point to creating the government that we want.
One of the most interesting things I learned about in this course was the project described in The Clock of the Long Nowby Stewart Brand. At the beginning of the reading, Brand argues that as a society, we have developed a “pathologically short attention span.” The primary issue with this is that we have begun to abandon any sense of long-term responsibility or understanding that our actions today influence not only the context of the world tomorrow, but the context of the world hundreds of years from now. The most difficult aspect of this problem, is that there is no way to hold ourselves accountable for finding a solution. After all, most of us will not be around 80 years from now when the next generations are reaping the consequences or our present day poor environmental decisions. If there is nothing to hold us accountable now, then what could we do to change our actions? In 1993, Daniel Hillis explained a solution. He proposed a large mechanical clock operating on a time scale different from how we usually measure time. “It ticks once a year, bongs once a century, and the cuckoo comes out once a millennium.” The idea behind this clock is that by putting time at a different scale, people will begin to see themselves as part of a bigger picture. The long-term will feel less like a future we will never live to see and more like a future that humanity is able to shape.
In my opinion, the tension between short-term and long-term perspective is one of the most important concerns of leadership today. It goes beyond determining how our society operates in the present day and extends into the future of our society and whether or not the human race can be sustained on Earth. In The Clock of the Long Now, Stewart Brand says “nobody can save the world, but any of us can help set in motion a self-saving world- if we are willing to engage in the process of centuries, because that is where the real power is.” In order to find the proper balance between making decisions for the short and the long-term, we must decide, as a society, what our vision is for the future. If we truly do not care about the future of the human race, then we do not need to put forth the effort to sustain our population. But if we do want to sustain the human race, and act out of something other than pure self-interest, than we must make more decisions while considering the repercussions in the long-run.
I find it interesting that differing awareness in decision making can have such divergent impacts on the long run versus the short run. This is because the time frame that you are looking at the world through is what determines the scope of problems. Something that seems like a huge issue right now, may not even be remembered five years down the line. Similarly, major effects of climate change that we do not expect to see for at least another century could be devastating by then. Now they are just a future threat, easily ignored with no immediate consequence. When moving forward it is also important to consider what you are using as the foundation for your decision making. There is a necessary balance of learning from the past but also looking towards the future. The past offers us a sort of roadmap. It is flawed but instructive. Consider the cliché you learn from your mistakes. All of history contains different mistakes that you can learn from.
In chapter 5 of The Language of Leadership, Soder introduces several tensions having to do with reconciliation. Reconciliation is important because it gives us the opportunity to fix things that have previously fallen apart. Successful reconciliation provides the platform for us to stop living in the past. Instead, we can move towards innovation and creating successful programs that will help us build the type of civilization we desire and sustain it in the long term. To achieve effective reconciliation you must discover the proper balance between accomplishing reconciliation for events in the past, and beginning to reconstitute relationships to move forward into the future. Similarly, you have the tension between justice and peace. In order to reconcile, one must feel as though some form of justice for the past has been delivered. However, no matter how much time is spent on reconciliation, some actions cannot be made up for. That is why peace is so important. After reconciliation, peace becomes the foundation people can use to move forward and rebuild. Because of this, peace is the goal of reconciliation. However, it is important to not overlook the role that justice plays in the equation. Reconciliation can only truly be made if it is voluntary on all sides. That being said, the administration of justice allows people who have been wronged to honor the past while also allowing them to look toward the future and be a willing participant of reconciliation. Another similar balance is the balance between truth and mercy. In this relationship, truth plays a role similar to justice, it is grounded in the past and must be acknowledged to respect the past. Mercy, on the other hand, is sometimes necessary for reconciliation in order to move forward into the future. Mercy is necessary because, as I said earlier, the justice that occurs does not always equal the original offense.
Finally, ethics provides its own tension in determining the effectiveness of a leader. In terms of ethics the tension comes from the extent to which a leader believes they must act with honesty, transparency and integrity. Ethics is the means that a leader takes to reach a specific end. Transparency in argument can be either extremely persuasive or not at all depending on the circumstances. Whereas, a more ethically challenged argument can hide inconvenient truths or even deceive people into accepting whatever they are presented. The question is to what extent do we have to act ethically if our goal is to the benefit of the greater good? The answer to this question really depends on personal choice and the risk of being undermined by unethical behavior. Obviously, it is preferable to act ethically, and to persuade only with arguments derived from fact and honest intentions. However, that is not the reality. People use a variety of methods to persuade, ranging from honest arguments to deception, blackmail or force. Do the ends justify the means? Are you any better than your opposition if you lower yourself to their level in the way you choose to persuade? While those questions are often debated, the ethical means to produce a desired result remain in question.
Why is it important to acknowledge the conflicting variables and impediments we face in society? How does it help us recognize barriers to progress and create the society that we want? I believe that if we can acknowledge the conflicting variables and tensions that exist in any political context, then we are making progress towards determining the balances that will produce the civic democracy that we are hoping for. In considering the balance of conflicting variables, it is important for people to accept a significant amount of ambiguity. There is not a concrete formula for the perfect society. If you try and emulate the exact makeup of another civilization when trying reconstitute your own, you will not get end up with carbon copies. This is because leadership always has a political, social and traditional context. There will always be a history for a society to consider when moving towards the future. The way a decision is received depends on the political context of the society it is made in. What may be successful for one, may be entirely rejected in another. When administering change, you have to consider the variables that are already in place. These could include the history, the current government, culture, religious beliefs, climate, population size and geographic location. Any number of variables are already in place and need to be accounted for when trying to initiate change. For a leader, this means that before making decisions, you have to know as much as possible about the political context you are already in. No leaders start with an entirely blank slate. For example, leadership in a despotic political context is entirely different than leadership in a democracy. A leader in a democracy has to place much more emphasis on persuading the public to reach a consensus and nurturing support. Whereas a leader in a despotic culture would put much more emphasis on limiting access to information, achieving compliance and governing a people characterized by blissful ignorance. The differing political contexts demand much different balances between variables of freedom and order to support the intended outcomes.
Throughout our class, Soder presented a lot of information that I had never before been exposed to. Information that I believe will help me become a more active member of society. Since this information was helpful for me, I believe that it will be just as impactful for others in encouraging them to be more active participants in democracy. In my thirteen years as a student of the Seattle Public School system, I only had one class that made me think critically about our past and present political context to even a fraction of the extent I had to in the last eleven weeks. The class in question was AP Government. Not only was it the only class offered that could educate students on their own civic responsibility, but it was optional. The alternative was a semester long joke that consisted of mainly watching West Wing episodes, taught by a teacher who barely even cared if her students showed up to class. Mainly because of the teacher, AP Government was the single most interesting and valuable class I took in high school. I received a good education in other subjects as well, but in the end, this was the only course that left me feeling as though I could understand and contribute to a discussion about real world important issues. This class showed me the difference of being a engaged citizen versus and individual. I only wish that I had been taught more about this subject at an earlier age. In a variety of the readings we had for this class, Soder makes a strong argument for aspects of political responsibility to be taught in public schools. I would have to agree with this. There is no other place that would have the same potential for effective and broad outreach . If we were to teach these types of things in the public schools, we would not only be educating the next generation, but we would be educating them before they are exposed to the norm of political apathy that is far too common today.
Leadership always involves assumptions about human nature. As a leader, you have to assume the most effective way to lead others. In regards to persuasion, you assume what is best for the public and what persuasion techniques they will respond to. Assumptions also need to be made about information seeking. You must assume how much information you must collect, where you can get it from, the most effective methods to collect it, and you must make assumptions about what information is accurate and needs to be acted upon. There are also assumptions to be made about the political context you are in, and about how it will influence the results of a specific policy or action. Another assumption you must make is what people want from their leader. That is the most important thing to consider. As a leader, it is important that you do not overstep the boundaries that have been given to you by those that you will lead. If you overstep boundaries you may be infringing on the independence or freedoms of those that you lead or alienating them by your actions. On the other hand, if you do not fulfill the expectations that your constituents expect of you, you are not leading your constituents in a responsible manor.
In democracy, we get the kind of leaders we deserve. If we are an engaged, thoughtful public and are active participants in democracy then we will get active leaders who make decisions with integrity. They know people are engaged and watching their actions and accomplishments. However, if we are apathetic and pay little attention to political activity, then we are going to get leaders who take advantage of us and make decisions that represent their needs and opinions, rather than the needs and opinions of the public. In democracy, it is important for citizens to have high expectations of their leaders. They must trust that the people they have elected as their representatives make decisions in line with the best interest of their constituents and the entire population. On the other hand, leaders must also hold high expectations for those who have elected them. Leaders must trust that their constituents will support them as long as they make decisions in line with the constituent beliefs. They also must trust and assume that the people will share any knowledge with them that could help inform an important decision.
So what can we do to be the type of public deserving of the leaders that we say we want? We say we want leaders who are ethically driven, transparent and act with integrity, so we must ask the same of ourselves. We say we want leaders who will advocate for our needs, so we must consider how our own personal needs will impact society as a whole. We say we want leaders who will make change, so we must educate ourselves on the different perspectives and be part of the change we are looking for.
...
