IMHO this, more than any silly ideological argument, is the primary difference between a good or a bad leader.
Under a very strong leader, any philosophy can work. If everyone actually agreed to do it voluntarily, communism works. Just look at all the charitable and volunteer work that religious and secular organizations do without being prompted by governments or without being paid. All you need is good leadership and people willing to follow. Capitalism works under sound and wise leadership from businessmen. Republican trickle-down economics could work, in theory. Democratic soft socialism could work, in theory. Ancient societies which worshipped sun gods and practiced cannibalism seemed to function as a strong society. But only with strong leadership.
A strong leader needs to appear to be invulnerable, but without risking the loss of the support of the people, and the connection to the people. If a leader stubbornly refuses to acknowledge obvious mistakes that they've made, they've lost touch with the people and have lost touch with reality. How can they resolve the errors in their thought process if they refuse to acknowledge they have errors?
A leader who calls a spade a spade is a better leader. Saying "my bad" is not only OK, it's considered basic decency, especially from a leader who is accountable to the people whose interests he represents.
I also like the bipartisan selections for the cabinet, which have been characterized as naked moves to gain power in Congress by one party. I don't see how that is, especially if the person selected to fill their previous position is from the same party. Frankly it seems like more of the same noise that lost an election.
EDIT: And Democratic senators got selected, too. So it doesn't even make sense.
Bookmarks