Eating the Large End First and Political Leadership

In Johnathan Swift's 1726 Novel "Gulliver's Travels." The Irish writer and clergyman highlighted an international war that sprung from a dispute over egg eating.

It seems that today we are not so different as we cling to poorly thought out allegiances and hurl insult and punishment toward those that stray from our preferred models of honor, focus and style. 

In pondering, I consider. What could the these egg eaters represent? 

Could he be describing personality styles in leadership? Are we emotionally captivated by our leaders? Perhaps you prefer a collaborative, even comforting leader that models perseverance and patience. A kind of patience that truly enjoys small end of the egg eating? A minimalist that ponders and savors. Could this leader exemplify those that  aspire to idealistic social reforms? Leaders of poise and tactful argument. Seeming intellectual visionaries that often feign certainty with great social prowess. Activists leaders who remodel the cultural landscape to fit their fancy.

Or in contrast, you could prefer the seemingly simple but forceful style of those that eat the large end first. These forceful eaters get right to the point of the matter, which often chides with the aspirations of their idealistic opponents. They replace theoretical goals with tangible self serving strategies to achieve more predictable results. These leaders may lazily circumvent or even discard formalities in both policy and protocol as they re-institutionalize the practical benefits of common effort and the everyday joys of mundane reality.

And so as the conflicts rage and the fires roar,

And we obediently take our places on the battle lines. Which will it be? 

But consider, the ongoing resistance leading to the Impeachment, and today's resurrection of seemingly arbitrary court conflicts? 

What is your opinion? 

With this leader? Are his goals too practical for today's elite? Are they too practical for you? 

In your eyes, was his strategy wrong, or was he right to resist the Impeachment and other attacks on his leadership? Was he too devious or too effective when he exercised all available rights to self protection and privacy by law?

Should he have displayed humility and sought quick reconciliation? Would you have preferred tactful explanation and gestures of reassuring self disclosure? How do think he should have dissuade his accusers. How should he reassure the undecided?

this video below describes why less with the law may be more.. 

titled, Don't Talk to the Police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

And finally, Why such intense animosity for this  particular leader?

Below historian Dr. Victor Davis Hanson describes how,  valued, the "Useful Maverick," can be in the seemingly critical moment. He also reflects on the harsh correction and rejection they often receive as they fail to fit in according to expectation. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpKboaGPVo4

 Trump: Tragic Hero ... or Just Tragic?

What do you think?