That sounds silly doesn’t it? The President is supposed to be a leader, we think of him (because it’s always been a him, not because it always has to be) as not only the leader of the country but he is referred to as the leader of the free world. Yet, I’m not certain that the President and those running for that office understand the meaning of being a leader.
I think it’s partially our fault as citizens and partially the fault of the candidate. It’s hard to take personal responsibility for our own lives and our own actions. Doing so usually means admitting that we’re human and therefore capable of mistakes. We are all wired a bit different from one another and perhaps we don’t like something about our own wiring, so we don’t want to admit that either. It’s much easier to look externally to someone or a group as both the cause and solution to our happiness level. We expect the President to be a singular person who fixes our lives for us. This is not only unfair, it’s impossible.
Our national government is comprised of three different units, developed as a checks and balances system. There’s the branch of the President, a singular person who has been elected by the people to run the show. There’s the congressional branch, also elected by the people but with the intention that they work together to create policies which govern our country. There’s the Supreme Court branch, appointed by the President and approved by Congress so that they are not influenced by the election process – a.k.a. keeping their job. I think that the general set-up of this system works pretty well. Not perfect, but no system really is.
I get that Congress can influence one another too much and overstep, which is why the President has veto power. I get that the President can get on his high-horse and run amok, which is why Congress has the power to rein him in. This is why I say if I were President I’d be a leader.
A leader isn’t someone who is a dictator. That’s why dictators are called that instead of leaders. Leaders provide a vision for their followers and clear directions on how to get there. Perhaps that’s what candidates are trying to do when they are campaigning, but to me it just comes out as someone who’s singularly trying to fix an issue, as if they don’t need the help of the others to accomplish the task. I am one person, I do not have all the answers and neither does anyone who’s running for (or been elected to) the office of President.
It’s true that if I were President I’d have key issues that I’d want the government to address. However, problems don’t get addressed when people haven’t bought in on the fact that that particular issue is one that we should focus on. So I would need to clearly identify the problems associated with that issue first. Then I would identify the people that should have a say in providing information and/or options for alleviating that issue. Then I would address congressional representatives and discuss options for policies which would affect an actual change.
Communication is the key to any successful relationship. This is true with marriages, parents/children, bosses/employees, or co-workers. Any time we interact with other human beings we’re in some type of relationship, some more permanent in nature than others. Why would the relationship between Congress and the President or our elected officials and citizens be any different? I believe that the President should set the example of true leadership by never having one party or the other exclusively in any meeting. Leaders from both parties should be at meetings with the President in order to encourage ongoing compromises and discussions. When one party feels left out (political or otherwise) that party feels undervalued and ignored. Bringing representatives to the table is what communication is about. In those meetings a precedent would be set stipulating that the childish, impulsive behavior that has been set in recent years needs to be set aside for more productive discussions and calmer thinking.
I think that leaders also need to set very clear expectations. In our society we have come to expect things to happen quickly. We have lost our ability to develop our patience. However, our society is also very large and extremely diverse and therefore change is not always welcome or easy. The best way a leader can enact change is through communication of expectations. Sometimes change will need to be all or nothing in order to do some real good. Sometimes things just need a small tweak to get a course corrected. Either way, a President should speak to the people clearly about what they should expect, not send it out in a press release or a silly tweet.
As we head into another election year full of finger pointing and negative ads, I hope that there is at least one candidate that talks about how he – or she – would actually lead the people of the country. I want to know what their strategy would be for bringing Congress together as much as possible. As far as I can see, our biggest issue in government is the fraction within it. We will continue to enact poorly thought-out and partisan laws that ultimately won’t work until we correct the communication rifts within the body of people elected to create those laws. That’s what a leader would do and that’s what I would do if I were President.
