Why is the process of choosing the next leader of a country more about what they say against the other candidate than what they themselves will do if elected??
In what situation would one judge (and choose) a leader based on their ability to and obsession with making someone else less? Isn't a key measure of leadership the ability to raise the tide so that all boats are lifted?
This is exacerbated by the fact that in almost every case, the winner will have to find ways to work with the loser and their party when elected. I can't imagine that this type of vitriol makes that easier and more productive? Again - how can a leader be great and have integrity if they are so short-sighted?
Recent Comments