Looking back at US history 12 years, I wonder how national leadership roles affect morale. The controversies of the last twelve years alone are enough to make us question citizen competency, not to mention mass media. At 53, the greatest presidential controversy came through President Clinton with the I did not inhale comment and I had no sexual relations with that woman statement ... Ahem prior to Obama who has been deemed a non citizen Muslim with ulterior and sinister motives, then on to Trump (91 pending felony counts) and now Biden. with present day doubts and Hunter fueling the inquisition. America's youth, 12 to 19 or so, have the last 12 years to guide them as citizens. So, does Confidence matter anymore? I think it should and does, but then the world's a mess and our leaders often enough look like choir boys compared to other nations.
Does "confidence" equate to "trust in government"? Trust in Party? If trust in individual politicians, does it revolve around how dependable such a one is in terms of community morals, and not breaking the law in their personal lives? Or is it following through with their campaign promises? Whether this or that precise area matters, I suppose, depends upon the particular voter. Presumably, "an assessment of the competency of _X_ in getting the job done" would at least be a universal concern. But that's contingent evaluation rather than an enduring feeling of confidence or trust in _X_. What I cognize is the type of opportunism that a campaigner, elected official, faction, or ideology is engaging in -- and whether the exploitive strategy and associated resulting polices (or lack of them) would currently accommodate a desired goal or curb an undesired one. (Taking into account detrimental side effects and rippling consequences beyond the intended.) Offering "bribes" to a population group (entitlements, protective privileges, positive action, equity, augmented rights, funding, relief from taxation and penalties, business favoritism, disenfranchisement of proposed oppressors, etc) in exchange for votes is just part of the pragmatism. The citizen is entering into a quasi-contract with a manipulative artist or power-seeking faction in general, which may or may not possess the potency to accomplish or obstruct an _X_. Sometimes recruiting efforts include establishing a precursor relationship with future potential voters and their posterity (legal and illegal migrants). So in the end, genuine faith or confidence in _X_ seems to be an alien thought orientation to me. I can't imagine what a true believer or follower's interior mental state is like in those instances -- or rather, what justifies the naiveté (excluding the concrete practicality of those "bribes" admirable incentives.) _
ThazzarBaal: To all appearances, a relatively large proportion of the US population is more or less oblivious to politics and national leadership. They don't see such things as relevant to their daily lives. For those who do engage with the political process, I think that good or poor leadership can affect morale. Wouldn't you rather have a competent, honest person as President than an incompetent, manipulative, self-interested, power-hungry liar? I think that anybody who realised their President was incompetent, manipulative, self-interested and a liar would probably feel disillusioned, especially if they voted for that President. Leaders are supposed to lead. They are supposed to be role models. When they fall short, that ought to affect morale. Really? That's the recent President whose behaviours while in office most concerns you? Never mind that Clinton's use of marijuana didn't occur during his Presidency or affect his ability to perform the role. Never mind that all that the sex scandal was essentially a private matter that, again, had no impact on the man's ability to do his job (barring all the distractions due to the relentless persecution by those who wanted to take him down). Meanwhile, much more recently, you a president who told a record number of lies while in office, who was demonstrably incompetent in doing the job he was elected to do and who used his office to enrich himself and his relatives, while constantly providing the worst kind of role modelling for his electors. That president went on to encourage insurrection against the constitution of your nation and he tried to overturn a free and fair election. But you see no controversy in that, because Trump's your man, while Clinton was an evil Democrat. Your priorities are bizarre. But, of course, you're in good (?) company there. Are you still confused about whether Obama was a Muslim or born in America? Haven't got up to date on the truth of those matters? You've had years to inform yourself, if you weren't aware of the truth. Don't you think you could try a little harder? ...which don't concern you, because you're planning on voting for a second term for him regardless. What doubts? His age? That applies equally to Trump? His mental fitness for office? Applies equally to Trump. His corrupt practices? Trump has 91 pending charges. Biden has none. What are you referring to? No evidence has been led linking Hunter Biden's income to any illegal or inappropriate practices by Joe Biden. You question sounds like a non sequitur, given your preamble. What kind of confidence are you talking about? You're confident you want a narcissistic liar to be your next President, aren't you? Does confidence matter any more? You tell me. Historically, the United States has had this thing called the rule of law, which many other nations have the misfortune of lacking. The rule of law puts checks and balances on the power of people such as Presidents. Institutions built on the basis of the rule of law provide further important checks and balances on the misuse of power by those in government (and in the private sector, to a lesser extent). But you want to elect Trump for a second term. He has little to no respect for the rule of law. How about you?
Morale across the entire spectrum. Confidence in our leadership, whether individual or party isn't much different is it? The consequence the same no matter, so ... With all the present day controversy rippling across the ponds, are we concerned about potential affects of our chosen leaders and the controversy surrounding them? It's a question I can't help but ask as a concerned United States citizen.
I suppose appearance matters as much as anything else. At least as it relates to our allies and our enemies. But, here in the states is a different type of dynamic where as you suggest, checks and balances come in to play. It's a tough world out there. I forgot to add that the checks and balances are likewise important internationally, but it's a lot different than voter concerns and citizen confidence. The controversies, including Trumps pending 91 felony charges are part of our dynamic. Obama's controversies were too. Biden's may or may not have just begun, but then the digging rarely ends with the terms. Compared to our last three, Clintons controversies are moot and irrelevant, imo. Well, at least in contrast to our current state of affairs ... Globally.
