Today been elections in the US, I thought I would write some points on what it means to lead and to choose a leader.
As a living being on the planet, I like to highlight to others why certain things aren’t healthy as they might try to pass at surface value when it comes to our social advancement.
Left vs. Right wing politics are not only an American model of leadership, but across the planet wherever there is some level of democracy, or at least the illusion of it, this two party system is the most often at the contending title of leadership.
Once we understand this, and add it to all the other valuable things we have as a society learned through the positive and the negative experiences through history, then we are able to see past our tiredness and overstimulation by those who ultimately seek to confuse us and divide us in order to enforce damaging world views on the majority.
Political parties are labels as is any other statement we put on something; an arrangement of symbols we call letters in a language and together these symbols form words, that each have a meaning, and together these words make a statement we ultimately have adapted as a means of understanding one another in yet another method of communication.
As it’s often the case though, while a label paints a concept, it is incomplete, and even at its “fullest” it is still simply arranged words that should rather be looked through application instead of meaning.
I can call myself any label I want: “a generous, kind being”, but if the actions and the motives behind all I do and the causation don’t flow, then they are nothing but words that I am trying to use to create an illusion of who I am versus the actual value of the person.
We can often blind ourselves with misconstructions of words.
A leader is someone who displays qualities of seeing the bigger picture, which is beyond one perspective, or one priority, particularly the damaging type which is short lived, most often at a higher cost in the long term – the bigger perspective.
Take for example the idea of money (short lived), versus upgrading value (bigger picture). It might seem that two are equal and through the same means that evolution is achieved, but not quite.
To build value and or to make it, there are many aspects that have to be accounted for, where money is a tool that at present in society is misconstrued as the value to be sought out, however in actual application at better or in the worst of scenarios, money is still a tool to trade, not the value sought out.
In seeking a better future, it doesn’t provide much other than a means to exchange, in the case of unfavorable situations arising, its value is diminished, or non-existent, where only the assets & other things like services are of essence of survival.
This key example gives us perspective as to what qualities are best in an optimal leader.
Even for a company, a leader that lacks empathy and or doesn’t see the difference of profitability versus sustainability/ wealth is not someone that is building a long term enterprise, but a bubble asset, which inflates and eventually pops.
In the case of leadership for things like government, people’s wellbeing is to be a priority more so, as it is the purpose of having an establishment to lead everyone. These are the advocators, overseers, and protectors of value more so for all people instead of few.
Seeking people whose visions, speeches and actions all match the qualities offered, are the most sure ways of having better leadership versus being part of a continuously dysfunctional broken world.
People who use language of understanding and are keepers of their promises are the people who make the world better, who advance it, who give the future of others an opportunity to be more than existence, but thrive, benefit and multiply onward.
People whose priorities are dysfunctional, and vendetta focused don’t make balanced leaders.
Greed and vanity aren’t qualities either to be seen in a leader that values all people detached from their personal benefit in the exchange; though alike, these are different from building on assets and acknowledging accomplishments.
There is a fine line that balances two sides. Leaders are supposed to be people able to master the ability to pave through the middle. Not only because this is where betterment happens, but as a means to be muses to society.
Leaders are people who hold power, but the power they hold is not theirs exclusively but the choice of all people agreeing. Obviously there are differences in how it is decided and executed, but even in these systems, they begin and end at the hands of the majority of people; hence why corrupt individuals seek to maintain fear, division and confusion as rule of thumb.
Rich, wealthy investors, leaders of private and public office, etc. are too at the mercy of all people together letting them pave the world whichever ways they do, or stopping corruption from continuing on.
Not only by voting in systems of democracy, but by participating and becoming aware of the processes that make up our civilization.
Elections are but a small part of the process of being a participant member of the world, because while on an average perspective it is often believed a person’s participation in the way the world is run private and publicly speaking is small, each action and each person add up together to make the whole of society.