• gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Yes and no imo, our political leaders should be responsive to the desires of the people they lead, but on rare occasions the people are stupid and need to be told so (e.g. for most of the 1960s, civil rights were not popular), and a lot of the time leaders need to help people recognize problems or opportunities that haven’t been widely discussed by the media or other politicians before (e.g. universal healthcare, basic income, safe drug use sites, etc.).

    Bad leaders do whatever public opinion polls say or whatever they want, good leaders find a way to do what they can without compromising on the values they ran on, great leaders find a way to move public opinion polls closer to them. Kamala is a good leader, not a great one, imo.

    • NoiseColor@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s good how you replied, but your reply was very general and idealistic. What about the current situation and a pragmatic situation? I mean, besides the fact who is on the opposite side lol.

      Sorry for going into hypotheticals.

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m not sure exactly what the question is, but with the way I defined things above I think Kamala is a good leader running against a party full of bad ones, so she’s got my vote.

        I would love a great leader that could engage and organize the general public a bit more and push opinions on things like immigration/asylum, police accountability, and trans rights and human rights in general in more positive directions, but there’s nobody with a real shot of being President who fits that description so I’ll take what I can get.