Something that stood out to me in the Harvey reading was the difference between “where are we going” and “how will we get there.” The author says that “there is something poetic or prophetic about stepping forth to answer the question ‘where are we going?'” However, the same aura does not exist in answering the question “how will we get there?” People want to hear their leader tell them where they are going. They want to hear that things will be better than they are now. Answering this question is easy. All a leader must do is paint an idilic picture and tell citizens what they want to hear. However, actually outlining and taking the steps to get to this place is harder. The truth is, there is no way for a leader to create a perfect situation for all people. Some will be angry or disappointed with the outcome. So, leaders often focus more on the “where are we going” question, and do not put as much thought into the steps it will take to get there.
I think that this is an issue that is present in our current political system. All presidential candidates are guilty of this (though some more than others). They tell voters what their vision for the country is, but are vague about their plan for getting the country to that place. This issue comes up a lot in presidential debates, where other candidates press their opponents to be more clear about their plan. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of voters do not care a lot about the “how will be get there?” question. They will vote for the candidate that tells them that they will improve the country, even if that candidate has no idea how to do so. The distinction between the “where are we going?” question and “how will we get there?” question is one that tells the difference between a good leader and a bad one, and I think that the US needs to listen more carefully to the hows in this presidential election.
I also found the communication section was interesting. I think there is a fine line between simplifying the complex challenges that leaders face so that everyone will understand them, and not providing the whole truth. In my opinion, this burden often falls on the media to present the public with all of the facts in a simplified manner, which is the only way to keep and open and healthy communication between leaders and the public.
I agree with your point on presidential candidates. There is a tendency to make large claims such as more access to healthcare, but few people know how to achieve this. I think it is the job of American voters to hold politicians accountable for their claims, but to understand the amount of factors needed to actually create meaningful change.
I really liked your response. I also touched upon the distinction between asking ‘where we are going’ versus ‘how we will get there.’ I think as a whole, people focus in on the ‘where we are going’ question because the destination is clear, but that does not provide and context as to what the journey is. I think when people approach change in these ways, from creating New Years Resolutions to policy changes, the issues linger on for much longer because there are no structured plans. I think asking ‘how we will get there’ is much more important because it blurs the destination and focuses on the journey to get there.
The communication part was also interesting to me, because it empathizes how influential someone’s storytelling ability is. If your voice isn’t one that people can relate to or feel themselves drawn to, then you might not garner people’s support very successfully.