Do influential leaders, whether it is the Pope or the President of the United States, have an obligation to keep their opinions fairly moderate on social issues? That is not to say they have to be directly in the middle on every topic, but it is worth considering whether influential leaders have a duty to avoid supporting extremes.
The Pope recently came out and publicly said that transgender people are the “annihilation of mankind.” This is the kind of opinion that might be better if kept private. By saying transgender people are the annihilation of mankind, he is fueling the fire of hate against a group of people that already garners undeserved prejudice. It can be argued that the Pope is supposed to follow the Catholic teachings on such issues, but if that is true then he should be admonished for speaking out against the Catholic Church’s views on gay rights and birth control.
It is easy to applaud the Pope for speaking out in contrast to the church on these topics because much of the modernized, democratic world can agree with him. It is when he turns away from the progressive outlook that he promotes such a polarizing opinion. If the Pope were to stay more moderate on these pertinent social issues, it would prevent a lot of conflict that already arises within Catholicism.
This presidential election cycle has been one of the most polarizing, hate-filled and bigoted races ever. Both parties are at fault when it comes to creating an atmosphere of contention and somewhat violent hatred. Taking a step back and looking at the two-party system objectively, it is easy to see how a system like this could create tension. It is the job of a presidential candidate to be able to take both their party’s views and the opposition’s views and find a middle ground that most benefits the greater American population.
People practice compromise almost every day. Whether it is deciding where to eat lunch or distributing work for group assignments, compromise is an essential part of a person’s social skills that, if lacking, can become a serious detriment. It is a conundrum then that Americans champion leaders who lack this vital skill. When a leader compromises, it is seen as a weakness instead of a strength. A leader who refuses to bend their beliefs is seen as strong and independent. This is an unsettling juxtaposition, and yet the public seems to be content to accept this as the status quo as we prepare to elect a new president.
Being a perfect moderate and winning the election is almost unheard of, but is it too much to ask for a president that prefers cooperation to argumentation?
Opinions have and always will be polarizing. It is the ability of the one who is putting forth the opinion to be able to take critique and see the opposition’s viewpoint that truly matters. If this global trend of domination through who can shout the loudest and pad the most pockets continues, then we are headed for disaster. It takes a leader that is capable of containing their extreme opinions and finding that middle ground to set an honorable example for the American people.
People are naturally predisposed to copy the mannerisms of those that we respect. It is that mimicry that will spread a more moderate and open-minded way of thinking. First, however, there needs to be someone that can effectively communicate their middle ground for us to begin the long road toward change.
Griffen Winget
can be reached at
or on Twitter @GriffenW