Being a leader, there will always be various different opinions on acts. When to compromise, what to be concerned about, and how to respond to the people are all indispensable considerations to the leader. Yielding to the public and abandoning principles is a way; remaining consistently committed to specific principles and objectives is a way, too. Which would be more effective?

Living in a modern world today, liberty is always the most essential concern to the majority. It’s the most ideal condition if the political leaders can always open up to the citizens, receive their perspectives, and act for them. However, there are too many voices to answer, and not all of them are based on rational reasons. Hence, always being compromised to the public might not be the optimal solution to be effective.

On the other hand, if the leader always remains consistently committed to particular principles and objectives, it might neglect lots of thoughts and harm lots of people’s rights. Though political leaders usually act with rational thinking, there might be some missing points that do not appear in the leaders’ minds. Therefore, public opinion is undoubtedly important.

To balance the pros and cons of both ways, I suggest the best way will be for the leaders should receive all opinions. In order to not disrupt the effectiveness of the act too much, the leaders should still stand on their principles and objectives firmly, but also leave some space for some minor adjustments based on the people’s opinion. The leaders should embrace all kinds of opinion, and discuss those ideas with the experts to justify whether it is possible to better their actions.