In time of disaster, does it make sense to rely on your leader?

[coloradodem2005]

I ask this in light of September 11. When 9/11 happened I was unsure of myself. While I loathed Bush in 2000 and already thought that he was pissing everybody off early in his presidency, I was silent. Not because I was afraid of being "unpatriotic". I felt that we needed to be united and stand together. My period of this was all too brief. I still didn't think much of him. I was very ambivalent on Afghanistan but I did not oppose it, if we were to catch Osama. The thing is, we never did. In spring of 2002, I started hearing about Bush wanting to invade Iraq, and all I could think was that this was absolutely wrong. So, I started expressing my displeasure with Bush again. My displeasure has grown exponentially ever since.


My point is, do you think that we need to stand by our leader when a disaster strikes? I would say yes, the first time, but that should not mean being blindly trusting of them. If a second one happens, then he should go.

[graywarrior]

1. As he was selected, not elected as leader of the free world

I did not consider him my leader. I relented to joining together after 911 to show support for NY and become one with the country. I did not trust that Bush would accomplish much as I viewed him as a liar, cheater and puppetboy for his administration.
I consider leaders to be those who have "been there." In other words, walked the walk, possibly put their lives on the line for their beliefs or at least spoke up against the norm about what they believed in. Bush sat in a classroom blinking his eyes and chewing his lip on 9/11. He then flew around in his plane, running from the disaster in NY and the Pentagon. His entire administration headed for bunkers to be safe, while the rest of the average joes stayed out on the streets organizing, entering fallen buildings to rescue victims, donating time to do anything to help.
Bush is not a leader. He will never be a leader.

[tom_paine]

2. Only if your leader IS NOT a MONSTER.

Hitler, Stalin, Ferdinand Marcos, and Bunnypants* need not apply.

[porphyrian]

3. Not Since Nixon

Many of the arguments I've had with people on our side is over this kind of disconnect - those of us who believe authority should be respected until proven otherwise, and those of us who believe that authority should not be trusted until proven otherwise. I fall into the latter camp. As far as I'm concerned, the only people capable of getting to the top in this corrupt system are themselves corrupt, thus the only trust I put in them until they earn it is that they cannot be trusted. In the case of our current "leader," he has never given me any reason to do anything but hate him, and count the seconds until he is removed permanently. Perhaps I am cynical, but, to me, this is the only thinking that makes sense, given history and human nature.

The other camp tends to believe that positions of authority themselves deserve respect, and that anyone who manages to obtain such a position must have some superior quality which has allowed them to do so. This camp gives authority figures the benefit of the doubt, which makes me rip my hair out. However, for the most part, this camp does eventually come around once enough evidence of a given authority figure's incompetence or criminality comes to light, often with a ferocity I can no longer muster when they do.

Edit: syntax, spelling