I have listened to the term “idealistic” be tossed around as if it were a negative characteristic. As in Obama is simply “idealistic.” Or Obama is full of “ideals.” Why is that said with such disdain and disgust? It seems like we would want someone who was idealistic, but also rooted in reality. One who envisions the implementation of these ideals yet is also able to adapt to what certain circumstances dictate and demand. I don't know about you, but I like idealistic people. I admire people who hold fast to their ideals. It is those ideals that bring about change, that revolutionize the way we see or do things. If being called “idealistic” is the biggest insult that can be heaped then I think it is safe to say our President is moving in the right direction.
I don't want a leader of any type: a husband, a boss, a governor, a senator, a pastor, or a President, who holds so steadfastly resolute to his ideas that he refuses to change when faced with a set of circumstances that certainly call for flexibility and compromise. I want a leader who has his or her own ideas but who is willing to scrap those if there is a better way, who is willing to compromise if necessary, or who is willing to put those ideas on hold if called for. That's wise leadership in my opinion. I have had a variety of coaches, a variety of bosses, and a variety of other leaders both formal and informal. By far the most effective leaders were those who were most flexible while still staying true to their vision, to their ideals. So, I return to my previous question. When did “idealistic” become a dirty word?