As Americans do we have to hate our leaders

[Delusion15]

I have always wondered why no matter what we Americans have to hate our leader.

America was founded by rebels and i think all people whether American, British or whatever always have a natural skepticism of people with authority over them.

Look at every leader in modern times Bush,Obama, Tony Blair, i think i heard something about the new prime minister

But it seems like every time we elect a new leader it takes us about a week to completely lose faith in him.

I think when we eventually realize that our leaders aren't the messiah we then think that they are evil. (ex.. bush is a nazi....Obama is a socialist..... Tony blair is a murderer that auto corrected on Google so whatever)

So enlighten me on this why do you think we always lose faith in our political leaders?

[Peace God]

Maybe if being elected had less to do with how much campaign money you can raise and was based more on actual competence. I'd have more faith in our leaders.

[Zephyr]

Maybe if being elected had less to do with how much campaign money you can raise and was based more on actual competence. I'd have more faith in our leaders.

This ^^

And when one party isn't making everybody happy, they get the boot and the other one comes in to 'fix everything' until they too piss the public off and get booted out for the other party. Politics isn't ever going to be a perfect science, we're only human. Damn the political pendulum.

[Jess]

Maybe if being elected had less to do with how much campaign money you can raise and was based more on actual competence. I'd have more faith in our leaders.

I totally agree. it should've been based on actual competence

[Delusion15]

Thats great and all but isn't it our fault for swallowing it and electing them in the first place

[Dive to Survive]

I don't think we always have to hate our leaders. Some people never had faith in Obama and some people thought Bush had issues, too. I don't think there will ever be a leader that everyone likes, outside of religion.

[darkwoon]

I wouldn't go as far as "hate" - that's usually not that strong (except for extremists of all sides, of course). But dislike? Certainly. I believe it actually is the best proof that a democracy works properly. It means citizens are following the politics, watching what their leaders are doing, debating and contesting their choices.

Democracy ceases where there is no debate - so as long as you have anything to say against your government politics, then it means you're still living in a free country :).

[karl]

At least you get to elect your President. The President of the EU wasn't elected by the people, and neither was the last UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown

[The Dark Lord]

Look at every leader in modern times Bush,Obama, Tony Blair, i think i heard something about the new prime minister

But it seems like every time we elect a new leader it takes us about a week to completely lose faith in him.

I think when we eventually realize that our leaders aren't the messiah we then think that they are evil. (ex.. bush is a nazi....Obama is a socialist..... Tony blair is a murderer that auto corrected on Google so whatever)

So enlighten me on this why do you think we always lose faith in our political leaders?

Yes, but these people are very poor examples. Tony Blair enjoyed the unconditional love of the British public from 1997-2003, until Iraq, George Bush had approval ratings in the 90's after 9/11, No political leader this century has had more praise in his opening two years than Barack Obama has, David Cameron isn't receiving any criticism, in fact the Tories are at a 2010 high in the polls. Blair lied to the public about Iraq and that was inexcusable, Bush fucked up Iraq and the economy, and Obama has tried to make a very right wing country more centralist, there would be something wrong if these decisions proved to be popular.

[Insanity Fair]

we then think that they are evil. (ex.. bush is a nazi....Obama is a socialist

Socialism is evil now?

[The Dark Lord]

Socialism is evil now?

Yes, it is an idealist and stupid concept. We are NOT all equal

[Delusion15]

Socialism is evil now?


I don't know if your an American or not but obama opponents use "Obama is a socialist" as one of there chief rallying points to why Obama is a bad President and a "terrorist".

By the way I am an Obama fan

http://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/obamahitlerleninbillboard.jpg

[The Dark Lord]

[I]I don't know if your an American or not but obama opponents use "Obama is a socialist" as one of there chief rallying points to why Obama is a bad President and a terrorist.
Don't you love the tea party movement....Morons

Politcal opponents attempt to discredit each other? Surely not.

I don't think any serious political opponent describes Obama as a terrorist. Also what is your defination of a terriorist? As afganistan could be considered terrorism.

[Delusion15]

I don't believe Obama is a terrorist i was just saying that is one of the many insults thrown at Obama similar to the Nazi etc..

[The Dark Lord]

I don't believe Obama is a terrorist i was just saying that is one of the many insults thrown at Obama similar to the Nazi etc..

I just can't believe that politicians get insults thrown at them, that concept is just beyond my comprehension

[darkwoon]

At least you get to elect your President. The President of the EU wasn't elected by the people, and neither was the last UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown

There is no president of the EU, so it is quite normal that people couldn't elect it :). Most democratic countries do not elect the Prime Minister seat directly; this is usually the leader of the strongest party of the new government.

[The Dark Lord]

There is no president of the EU, so it is quite normal that people couldn't elect it :). Most democratic countries do not elect the Prime Minister seat directly; this is usually the leader of the strongest party of the new government.

Yes there is, it is Belgian Herman Van Rompuy, although he is not named the President of the EU, he represents the EU on the world stage and acts as the political figurehead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council

[INFERNO]

The best answer I can think of is you cant please everyone. Whenever a new president comes in, a bunch of people are happy about it and a bunch are already pissed off because they didn't get the person whom they wanted in. There's also a bunch who are in between on their feelings and another group who don't care or don't know much about either. The moment you have two or more people battling for being elected, you're going to have one group happy and at least one group angry. As that new president does various things, you're going to have the "happy group" happy and the "angry group" angry. The other groups are going to pick a side or be neutral. However, once the new president screws up with something, the angry group is going to use that as much as possible to say the new president is bad, the one they wanted wouldn't have screwed up (or screwed up but not as badly). "Happy group" is now angry at "angry group" and "happy group" may lose some members, and vice-verca when the leader does something good.

Keeps repeating for every leader, even when they're no longer leaders (i.e. prodding at George Bush despite him not being the president anymore).

[darkwoon]

Yes there is, it is Belgian Herman Van Rompuy, although he is not named the President of the EU, he represents the EU on the world stage and acts as the political figurehead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council

As the article says: sometimes incorrectly referred to as the President of the European Union.

If you had read the article furthermore, you'd have also noticed this:

However, since the Treaty of Lisbon, article 15 of Treaty on European Union states that the European Council appoints its president for a two-and-a-half year term, with the possibility of renewal once. Appointments, as well as the removal of incumbents, require a qualified majority.

If you followed the link about the EU Council, you'd have noted that:

The European Council (...) comprises the heads of state or government of EU member states, along with its President and the President of the Commission.

So, basically, the President of the EU Council is elected by the council members, which were, in turn, elected in their own countries. Where this is antidemocratic escapes me.

And you would also have noted this:

The President of the European Council, currently Herman Van Rompuy, is elected for a once-renewable term of two and a half years. The role as President-in-Office is in no sense equivalent to an office of a head of state, merely a primus inter pares (first among equals) role among other European heads of government. The President-in-Office is primarily responsible for preparing and chairing the Council meetings, and has no executive powers. The position offers external representation of the European Council and the EU and must report to the European Parliament after each European Council meeting.

Which means he's in no way the equivalent of the US President, or even the British Prime Minister. Hence I maintain my initial writing: there is no President of the EU, that can be compared to the US one, and thus, it is quite normal EU Citizens couldn't elect such a man.

Just one small point: in France, we elect the President directly - when you see the result, I wish we wouldn't :). The most popular man is not always the best leader...

[The Dark Lord]

As the article says: sometimes incorrectly referred to as the President of the European Union.

If you had read the article furthermore, you'd have also noticed this:



If you followed the link about the EU Council, you'd have noted that:



So, basically, the President of the EU Council is elected by the council members, which were, in turn, elected in their own countries. Where this is antidemocratic escapes me.

And you would also have noted this:



Which means he's in no way the equivalent of the US President, or even the British Prime Minister. Hence I maintain my initial writing: there is no President of the EU, that can be compared to the US one, and thus, it is quite normal EU Citizens couldn't elect such a man.

Just one small point: in France, we elect the President directly - when you see the result, I wish we wouldn't :). The most popular man is not always the best leader...

I said in my original post that he wasn't the President of the EU. Although he is the closest thing to one. The fact that the people of Europe cannot elect him is undemocratic, regardless of the current election system. He is a complete nobody! It belittles the EU, which isn't actually a bad thing

[Antares]

I quite frankly don't hate my leaders...well some of them.
I mean, as for Obama, I think he is doing better than Bush (who I disliked vastly). I really like Clinton but I dislike Reagan and Bush sr.
I like Pelosi I believe.

Basically, I don't like the people who disagree with my views or do stupid stuff.
So obviously, I dislike many Republicans and Conservatives and I tend to like the Liberal/Democrat side. There are exceptions but honestly...

If we didn't hate our leaders then our country wouldn't be what it is today. Some famous quote (I think it was Jefferson) basically said that without pressure on the government, it will fail. So, thats the mentality many people have...and also, as humans, its easy for us to dislike people when they don't do what we want. Obviously its hard for a leader to cater to 300 million people, so leaders will always be hated. Just how the world turns.

[Disco Jones]

Liking your leaders is unpatriotic. Go back to France.

[darkwoon]

I said in my original post that he wasn't the President of the EU.
darkwoon: There is no president of the EU
Matty1: Yes there is, it is Belgian Herman Van Rompuy, although he is not named the President of the EU

But the important point is that regardless of the title you give to him, he is not by far and large the equivalent of the US president. He's a kind of unique representative of the EU Council, where previously foreign leaders had to talk to each national member separately. Actually, Barosso, the President of the EU Commission, is probably closer to the US president powers in that he holds influence on the executive institution of the EU (the Commission).

Although he is the closest thing to one. The fact that the people of Europe cannot elect him is undemocratic, regardless of the current election system.
All modern democracies are indirect systems, in which citizens send delegates to represent them. I never vote for laws directly - it is people representing me at the Parliament that do so. That's exactly the same with the President of the European Council - we don't elect him directly, but he's chosen by people we elected to represent ourselves and "emanate from the citizens wish", so to speak.

In most countries, the Prime Minister, the President of the Parliament, the heads of the Justice system are all important roles that are not elected directly by the citizens, but by the Parliament or any equivalent organism made of elected representatives of the society. I haven't heard anybody calling that "anti-democratic".


He is a complete nobody! It belittles the EU, which isn't actually a bad thing

Aaah, *there* is the real issue at hand with Van Rompuy. British wanted one of them to hold the role, but failed to get it for several reasons, and then vowed a kind of holy war against Van Rompuy, with a lot of british newspapers throwing mud at the man.

That he belittles the EU has yet to be proven - so far, what I've heard about the man (of which I didn't know anything before myself) is that he's a skilled diplomat (which is perfect for his role) and that most EU and foreign leaders are viewing his work very positively.


Liking your leaders is unpatriotic. Go back to France.
Is that "go back to France" directed at me? If so, then let's just add for the record that I don't like my current leader Sarkozy at all, and a lot of people don't.

Also, at the beginning of 2010, the approval rate of Obama in the US was at 57% - does that mean that more than half of the US population was unpatriotic and should spend their next holidays in France? That's for sure good news for the touristic industry of my country! :D

(Seriously, people, that kind of hatred against France not only shows complete lack of knowledge of its citizens and the country as a whole, but it also gets quite long in the tooth. Moreover, it is insulting for most French people, who are just as patriots as US citizens can be. US doesn't get the priviledge of liking their flag and their country.)

[The Dark Lord]

Aaah, *there* is the real issue at hand with Van Rompuy. British wanted one of them to hold the role, but failed to get it for several reasons, and then vowed a kind of holy war against Van Rompuy, with a lot of british newspapers throwing mud at the man.

While I accept your other points, I completely resent and disagree with with your above comments. While Tony Blair, who is of course British, wanted the EU job, you would find it impossible to find a single british newspaper who wanted him. However the British media has criticised as has everyone else, Baroness Ashton the EU High Representative (in effect EU foreign minister), who was Gordon Brown's 3rd choice. One of Ashton's public critic was the French defense minister Hervé Morin, so don't try the British hate the EU card.