I am not stating my preferred candidate for the American election in this post. If you feel though at the end of this piece, you can guess who I would vote for, then I feel this will reflect more on your own personal perceptions of the candidate you think I am “for or against”. 

It is something to think about when you go out to vote for the person who you perceive as the better leader. 

So last night, I decided to watch a news programme regarding the upcoming election, which was been aired on a much recognised American news station. The interviewer was talking to two news reporters who were placed on each of the presidential candidates campaign sites. I settled in, ready to listen to both sides of the arguments only to be blown away by the biased statements both the interviewer and the reporters were making, and the manner in which the questions were asked. I was pretty gobsmacked with the personal viewpoints that the interviewer was making, which were not based on fact, but based purely on their own sentiments. Each reporter was also seemingly rallying for the candidate of which they were discussing. As the interviewer was so one sided, and had an obvious preference to one particular nominee, the outcome at the end of the programme eventually led to one reporter leaving  the interview feeling smug; and the other leaving feeling deflated.

No wonder Americans are swaying to and fro with such biased “media reporting”.

It was the most bizarre thing I have ever seen.

Well, almost. 

Not as bizarre as the whole situation that America now faces.

I am telling you now that I am not going to discuss politics in this piece. Truthfully I am not political, I never have been. I always make decisions based on my own personal values, my ethics, and all the knowledge I can gain through doing non-biased primary and secondary research.

I don’t favour “parties” and do not align with any one thought stream – that to me is a ridiculous notion.

How can one be open minded, if they are one sided? 

However, there are times, when we can only make one choice and so this is when I draw upon my values to help me make decisions.

One value of which is, Equality.

I am an “equalist” – if there is such a word. I passionately and fiercely care about people, individually first, and collectively second. Every single person should have equal rights – irrelevant of their race; age; culture; sexuality; religion; political preference; socioeconomic status or gender.

But the more we talk about equality it seems, the more divisions arise.

For example, if we look at the “female versus male” gender employee rights in the workplace, and we exclude the ages of employees in this debate, then it could be argued that irrelevant of the sex of a person, a child, for instance, could still receive less pay than the minimum wage as set for adults. How is this equal? If they get their job done, be they male or female, then they too should be treated fairly, should they not?

But if the agenda is only about the genders, then ageism in the workplace becomes a separate topic.

Or if we compare two groups in healthcare, let’s take learning disabilities versus physical disabilities regarding accessibility to services, it could be said that the population with chronic, but not disabling conditions, may not get the same level of services as those who have a physical or learning disability of some description. Is this equal? Should all people not have equal access to healthcare, relevant to their needs, when they need it?

Again, these are examples, in my opinion, of non collaborative, non integrated approaches for the issues in question.

It can often cause more tensions and divisions, than equality.

Should we not be marching in solidarity with one another, as opposed to comparing who is fairing out best? 

Yes, we must use a formula to compare and contrast to create a sum – but why is there a “versus”? Should there not be a plus and equals sign in the equation? Men and women are different. Adults and children are different. Those with or without illnesses are different too.

Different is a good, not a bad thing. The only common denominator between all of these groups, should be that everyone has the same equal rights for their needs. If I was in the right position I would scrap our current status quo, and start from scratch.

Equality from birth right through to end of life. For me, it doesn’t matter “what” you are, what you “have,  or “where” you come from.

But unfortunately that, for me, is what this election has come down to. 

A nation is being divided because they are thinking about where people come from from. They are thinking about what they have, and who they are. Many feel they have been done wrong because “outsiders” have been “allowed” in. This election is creating a division all by itself.

Imagine if everyone stopped and asked themselves: Why are we fighting with each other, why don’t we all just rally together for equality for all?

This is a thought I have had since I was a child.

Oh, to be a child again.

Can you imagine the world coming together asking all of their governments to think as broad as that? As an adult now, I have regretfully resigned to the fact that this is not the way the world works, well not now anyway. Imagine a world where global communities thought and acted collectively, proactively and collaboratively while having their own values and cultures honoured at the same time.

I know the outcomes of this election, whichever way it goes, will definitively not have this effect. 

Much like the two news reporters – one leaving happy and the other not so, this will be the case for the supporters of each candidates. But on a much greater scale. Fear can create chaos, anger and tensions. There is a huge division opening up in the world right now. This election is bringing out the worst in people, not the best. Peoples individual fears are being preyed upon.

Good leaders create positivity, not fear. Good leaders create more leaders, not followers.

They admit when they do wrong, they say sorry. They learn from mistakes. They reward when things are done right – they do not punish when things go wrong. They look at what is working, they don’t prey on what is not working.

They say what they already have is “great” and that it can only be improved upon by learning from the past, and looking forward. Not going back to what once was.

They have a long standing vision, of which their teams, other leaders and followers buy into. Good leaders can change their minds and adapt to new concepts, ideas or innovations; and they work through, not against issues – with people. Good leaders value family and friends, and are loyal to same, even when things go wrong.

They do not lie.

They do not steal.

They do not bully.

They do not insult.

They do not harass.

They do not assault.

They do not create fear.

They do not invade privacy.

They do not create divisions.

They do not promote violence.

They do not condone violence.

They do not promote inequality.

They do not manipulate followers.

They do not stoop to negative tactics.

They do not physically harm humans.

They do not play victim to their bullies.

They do not ignore constitutional law.

They do not prey on vulnerable people.

They do not devalue scientific research.

They do not bring out the worst in people.

They do not turn their back on their teams.

They do not desensitise sensitive situations.

They do not violate a persons belief systems.

They do not disregard a communities cultures.

They do not paint all people with the one brush.

They do not abuse national financial institutions.

They do not put their own agenda before a nations agenda.

They do not hate. They do not abuse.

Using this as my own personal value system for good leaders, it is obvious to me that ALL of these approaches have been used by ONE particular candidate in this election campaign.

Not every good leader is perfect, I know. Everyone has flaws. But a not so good leader who holds all of these traits, to me, is a dangerous leader.

Good leaders do not stand alone on pedestals, but instead have people standing beside them on stages, advocating their work.

When put in a position where I would only have one choice to make, I would always choose the less riskier of the two, as there is hope for good leadership to shine through.

Drawing to a conclusion, I  eventually finished my research on this topic by asking my own teenage girls who they would choose. They told me, that if they met the leader with all of those traits in a person, that they would be scared of them.

Scared. No parent would ever want their child to feel that way. Any parent in their right mind would take their child out of dangers way.

Either way though, even though I know who I would choose, I know my choice will not make a difference.

Because not only can I not vote…

The wall has already been built.