The United States values a leader more than they do a follower. There are leaders in all areas and aspects of the United States and with this comes an abundance of leadership styles.There are many types of leaders that are favorable for different positions of leadership and Edelman explores these different types. In Murray Edelman’s The Symbolic Uses of Politics, chapter four, discusses differences, strategies, and types of leaders and leadership that is successful contrasting leadership that is not. The high valuation of leaders in our country demonstrates how self-interested people are and how much our nation values power. Through different strategies of applying and wielding one’s leadership strategically, an individual can get the support
…show more content…
Governmental leaders have to have an immense capability for evoking strong emotional response in large populations. When a leader becomes a legitimate leading official of the state, the individual becomes a “symbol…of the state: its capacity of benefitting and hurting, for threatening and reassuring” (Edelman, p. 73). The leaders acts now have an indirect consequence on a large number of people. The leaders acts are public because they involve the fate of the general public. The leaders downfall can be tragic because when the interests of the general public is placed with the responsibility of the leader, the leaders downfall can result drastically effect the interest of the general public and cause concern. Governmental leaders usually lead a large amount of people and with the age of large organizations and because the nation cannot be controlled by simple polities thus, “by the factual and value premises assembled through organization” (Edelman, p. 74). Therefore, the maneuverability of the leader is severely limited by the information that is supplied and pre-screened. Political leaders lack of actual power makes differentiating leaders extremely hard. The way that a leader differentiates themselves from one another is by their behavior or leadership styles. Leadership styles put on a facade of the leaders maneuverability. The impression of maneuverability is more important than …show more content…
Like Edelman’s idea of an ideal leader, the leadership that is most revealing about contemporary politics is the passive style of leadership. “It consists basically of the avoidance of firm positions on controversial subjects while at the same time posturing as protagonist against an evanescent enemy..” (Edelman, p. 81). Not specifically choosing a side will increase political support because the leader will get supporters from both sides. An example of this would be when Obama was asked his opinion on abortion and he stated that it “is[was] above his pay grade”. This gives pro and pro choice no reason to not support him. This type of leader although cannot be passive when it comes to coping. The leader must have a strategy in problematic situations to keep up his support. Even though the leader is passive when it comes to controversial topics like abortion and gender equality, the leader needs to show their nationalism which trumps all. In war, “the enemy is identified and visible under attack. A leader whose acts suggests that he has a strategy and is pursuing it finds it easy to attract a loyal and enthusiastic following” (Edelman, p. 82). This exemplifies the complexity of the passive
Governmental leaders have to have an immense capability for evoking strong emotional response in large populations. When a leader becomes a legitimate leading official of the state, the individual becomes a “symbol…of the state: its capacity of benefitting and hurting, for threatening and reassuring” (Edelman, p. 73). The leaders acts now have an indirect consequence on a large number of people. The leaders acts are public because they involve the fate of the general public. The leaders downfall can be tragic because when the interests of the general public is placed with the responsibility of the leader, the leaders downfall can result drastically effect the interest of the general public and cause concern. Governmental leaders usually lead a large amount of people and with the age of large organizations and because the nation cannot be controlled by simple polities thus, “by the factual and value premises assembled through organization” (Edelman, p. 74). Therefore, the maneuverability of the leader is severely limited by the information that is supplied and pre-screened. Political leaders lack of actual power makes differentiating leaders extremely hard. The way that a leader differentiates themselves from one another is by their behavior or leadership styles. Leadership styles put on a facade of the leaders maneuverability. The impression of maneuverability is more important than …show more content…
Like Edelman’s idea of an ideal leader, the leadership that is most revealing about contemporary politics is the passive style of leadership. “It consists basically of the avoidance of firm positions on controversial subjects while at the same time posturing as protagonist against an evanescent enemy..” (Edelman, p. 81). Not specifically choosing a side will increase political support because the leader will get supporters from both sides. An example of this would be when Obama was asked his opinion on abortion and he stated that it “is[was] above his pay grade”. This gives pro and pro choice no reason to not support him. This type of leader although cannot be passive when it comes to coping. The leader must have a strategy in problematic situations to keep up his support. Even though the leader is passive when it comes to controversial topics like abortion and gender equality, the leader needs to show their nationalism which trumps all. In war, “the enemy is identified and visible under attack. A leader whose acts suggests that he has a strategy and is pursuing it finds it easy to attract a loyal and enthusiastic following” (Edelman, p. 82). This exemplifies the complexity of the passive