Leading or Playing Politics?

I had an interesting conversation this morning about the difference between leading and playing politics. We concluded, in our own admittedly limited experience, that the following is the difference: Leaders envision change for the better, communicate it, and take others to that place. Those who play politics determine where public opinion is headed, race ahead of the pack and try to be the first to wave the "new" banner.

I think there may be something to this. A quick study of some political situations will reveal that both of these cases exist. Ask just about any pollster worth his or her salt and they'll tell you that a big part of what we do is an attempt to, through statistics and insight, predict the future. Why bother unless there is some desire to be a part of that change? Rarely will an elected official say, "oh my, the constituents are heading in the wrong direction, how can we re-direct that?" More often you'll hear statements like, "well, I don't agree with where they're going so I better just not talk about that issue." Case in point, abortion. Many pro-life officials are now counciled, by pollsters and consultants, to simply avoid the issue altogether. Why? Becuase polls say that people are more pro-choice and less hard line in their district so they don't want to alienate anyone.

I disagree with the premise that the best way to "get elected" is to have the most people feel good about you. I think people in America are hungry for real, transparent, honest and principled leadership. I, for one, would like to see more of it. So why not allow our elected officials to have divergent opinions from our own? Why not work to make our voice heard while respecting their position as our chosen leaders? Why not let them lead?

-joel