Originally Posted by Tethys

This is a question that interests me, TP.

It is interesting, I think, that past leaders do not seem to be viewed through the same partisan scope as contemporary leaders. This is especially so in the United States, I believe. It seems to me a lot of Americans (and non-Americans) would be fond of many of the past Presidents, and it seems their party affiliation does not matter so much in retrospect. Of course, in their own time, the divide might have been on a par with present politics.

It seems to me there is room for a great deal of reforms in the governance of democratic nations such as ours.

In terms of your specific question, I have been thinking for some times along the line that the leader of a nation should stand above party politics, which would mean that he or she should not be affiliated to a party. This does not mean that he or she would necessarily be loved by all. I’m just thinking that it might be an option for electing leaders that can more broadly represent the American public as a whole, and be more able to muster support from both parties on key issues of national importance. I say the US because that’s what your Op question addresses, but I think the same in terms of Australian and other democratic nations.

Tethys