NationStates Jolt Archive

I was fortunate to grow up in the 60's when there were great leaders that had in mind an ideal future, and even though everyone knew we would never reach that ideal at least we would aim for it.

So they actually led rather than just reacting. They came up with programs that would improve the lives of citizens rather than waiting for a problem to happen then attempting to fix it.

This all seemed to end in '68 with the death of Bobby Kennedy "I dream things that never were and ask 'why not'" and Martin King "I've been to the mountain top, I may not get there with you, but we as a people will get there."

Since then I've been searching as a voter for one leader with a vision of the future that he wants to take the nation towards. Every candidate of both national parties have been reactive rather than proactive for 40 years and by listening to the herd running this time it isn't going to change.

Is there anyone else that sees this as a problem? Is anyone else disappointed in the herd? Is anyone else old enough to understand the difference between actually having a vision and having a stand on a problem? Fixing things long before anyone knew there was a possibility of a problem. Building rather than just repairing.

I know some of you will say the 60s were less than ideal and I fully agree. I tell people it was the best of times and the worst of times. If you don't remember that era you have no idea how great the nation can be, nor do you have any idea how evil the nation can be. But the point of the thread is we always had leaders that gave us a vision of how great the nation could be even in the midst of the evil.

i think in the 60s we as a people still believed in those ideals, we still believed in politicians with sweeping visions... i'm not sure that we do anymore at least not progressive visions.

the right still has some on that old fire. reagan had a vision and people bought it, and the neocons had a vision that seemed popular for a while. they invisioned radical transformations of the nation and the reaganites at least were moderately successful. but the great society visions of progessive transformation seem to have died out. the democrats have been on the defensive so long they have a hard time seeing beyond the maintaining of gains they originally won decades ago.

I think a lot of things happened.

First I think the lofty hopes of the 60's came crashing down to earth with, perhaps initially the death of Bobby, but really with Vietnam followed by Nixon. I think the Cuban Missile crisis was America's high point and the resignation of Nixon its low. I think that left America in a deep funk for the 70's that was followed by the nihilistic excesses of the 80's. I feel the 90's were a sober hangover where America got back on its sensible feet.

9/11 changed all that.

Second, I think the barrier between media and legislator came crashing down so that private lives became more important than public deeds. The media went mass market, especially with television where deep and balanced views were not suited to the medium. This meant that true visionary leaders were also not suited to the medium because a visionary statement sounded empty and hollow to the public and was easily shouted down by louder statements.

The dual effects of this created a cynical and jaded public that didn't care to think deeply about issues because it all seemed a sham anyway.

I truly think this is changing now - I truly believe that, through the Internet, people are becoming more active, more involved and more aware of issues. I think that despite the general distaste for Bush, we're seeing the end of opaque politics and that the rising generation is full of true ideals and equipped with the tools to see those ideals through.

I hope I'm right.

P.S. I never lived in the 60's so hard to know the reality, nor the 70's really aside from the tail-end when I was too young to know anything.

Well, George W. Bush had a vision. Or rather, he was gonna implement the right's vision. Turns out people aren't big on partisan utopias.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9619083
The conservative movement that for a generation has been the source of the Republican Party's strength is in the dumps

Notice how a lot of leaders with vision, die young, by the hands of an assassin? I think that's why we don't have those leaders anymore. They are too scared to speak up.

Notice how a lot of leaders with vision, die young, by the hands of an assassin? I think that's why we don't have those leaders anymore. They are too scared to speak up.
people with vision are only assassinated if they gain a signifigant following and upset powerful interests. otherwise people with vision are just ignored and marginalized. i think there are probably just as many would be visionary leaders out there, they just don't get enough attention to register on the big media national scene.

We're a little America-centric here as well - I think Margaret Thatcher had a vision, right or wrong. The thing is that there were real causes to have a vision over.

For 60's America it was about beating back communism and how far the US should go, for 80's UK it was about liberalizing business and how far the UK should go.

You could say the Republicans have had a vision over the last 20 years, beating back wishy-washy values.

Perhaps the environment is the new cause though I don't think it's of the same ilk.

I think the new cause is open source - in whatever field that is, I think the battle is now between protection of information and open source information and the leader who really calls for the breaking down of barriers to information, in whatever form that is, will help to galvanize a better future.

I doubt politicians are any different today, versus the 60s or any other recent decade. The issues are a bit smaller, which makes them less interesting.

No offence, but personaly, I beg to differ with that last statement. Back then, from what I've heard from the people of, and before that generation, the two major political parties were just as angry toward eachother as they are now. The only difference then was that if the nation was in crisis, they'd be like: "Welp, lets finish argueing later, right now we need to work together for the well-being of the nation." Nowa days its like: "Screw you you **** eating **** ****** ****** ***ing ******!!!! Im right and your wrong!" "NO! IM RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG YOU ****** **** ** ** ******!!!!1" "NO! I AM!" Catch my drift?

No offence, but personaly, I beg to differ with that last statement. Back then, from what I've heard from the people of, and before that generation, the two major political parties were just as angry toward eachother as they are now. The only difference then was that if the nation was in crisis, they'd be like: "Welp, lets finish argueing later, right now we need to work together for the well-being of the nation." Nowa days its like: "Screw you you **** eating **** ****** ****** ***ing ******!!!! Im right and your wrong!" "NO! IM RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG YOU ****** **** ** ** ******!!!!1" "NO! I AM!" Catch my drift?

That's true from what I've read and heard as well, though to be fair I wasn't alive in the 60s either. The ads of the time could be pretty mean-spirited, and though cliche, the word "turbulent" comes up a lot when describing the politics of the era. :p

Well, you'd need a truly populistic leader that believes in what they do and say. I mean, with this, someone who does (not just think they do) something good for everyone and not just their voter base.

You need someone who'd be running as an independent. Having a party necessarily creates exclusion at some level. It is easier for members of other parties to vote for an independent (I think, haven't actually ever considered this). Remember, votes are confidential.

You basically need the type of leader that could effectively be president of the world.

I suspect it is partly down to changing perspective, people become more cynical and realist as they get older. Also, I think people have become more willing to criticise the government, based on their greater knowledge of politics and world events.

Kennedy won by about the same margin as GW. When Kennedy was killed the entire nation mourned. Was there any time in GW's administration when the nation would have mourned his loss? I doubt that more than half would have mourned if he'd been killed a month after 9/11. When Bobby died people stood along the rail tracks as his body went across the country. I wish I could say something nice about the reaction to King's death but his followers didn't understand his message was peace. (And why would someone burn down their own neighborhood? If you wanted to burn something go out to the suburbs and have fun.)

Reagan was a god to the right, and they tried to make a big thing of his funeral but the nation didn't mourn. Only about half would have mourned if he had died when he was shot in office.

The point I'm trying to make is it didn't matter so much about party as much as a loss of ideas and the aiming for that ideal place. I think a real leader should be able to communicate his vision and why his vision is the direction to go. If people really believe in the vision they will follow and they will mourn the loss of that vision. Today it seems to me the "leaders" are really followers of polls and reactors to events rather than leaders taking people to a new level. In the end I think people have more love for a real leader.

I don't see one of those any time soon.

The problem is that "vision" is not a pre-requisite to getting elected.

"Where are the leaders..."?


They got shot.