Being nice is such an underestimated quality in a person, yet what's so wrong with wanting our various leaders and managers to be simply that: nice?
I'm not talking wimpy nice, hopelessly indecisive nice, or pushover nice. And certainly not "two-track" nice. I'm talking about being a genuinely good and decent person, with that added dimension of vision, and a large dollop of good-work ethic. That's all I and many others ask in our top dogs, yet it seems so hard to come by.
You could say the public asks for its leaders to be gritty, steely. They want someone who they can have a glass of beer with, but who will also swat away unionists, angry ethnic minorities, minimum wage advocates and hippies without a second thought. If you are a powerful woman, there's an added dimension to it: modelling yourself on Margaret Thatcher, say, may ensure a subsection of men find you irresistibly alluring. The meaner, the better, they reckon.
From this, you might surmise that good guys finish last. You might conclude the only time they actually win is when the cynical and power-hungry become so complacent that they are entangled by their own webs of intrigue.
You and I may not really subscribe to it, but astrologers say we are entering a changing time, the Age of Aquarius (and it's nothing to do with frolicking naked in fields of flowers). Some say we've left the Age of Pisces - marked by illusion, fantasy and delusion - and in our new Age, we'll see a battle to end selfish desire and the beginning of genuine free expression.