I can't let important policy decisions hinge on the fact that an
I can't let important policy decisions hinge on the fact that an election is coming up every 90 days.
In the voice of Gerhard Schröder, former Chancellor of Germany, we hear a declaration that echoes across the ages: “I can’t let important policy decisions hinge on the fact that an election is coming up every 90 days.” At first, it appears as the speech of a politician weary of the endless cycles of campaigning. But if we listen more deeply, we hear not only the frustrations of one man, but a timeless truth about leadership, courage, and the burden of responsibility. For the destiny of nations cannot be governed by the tremors of popularity, nor the fleeting applause of the crowd.
The ancients knew this well. They taught that true leaders are like captains steering their ships through storms: they must look not at the restless waves but at the guiding stars. To let one’s hand be swayed by the passing winds of elections, of opinion, of fear, is to invite shipwreck. Schröder, with these words, reveals a defiance of short-sightedness. He proclaims that the measure of governance must be eternity’s gaze, not tomorrow’s headlines.
Consider the tale of Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome. Beset by wars at the empire’s borders and plague within its walls, he could have chosen the easy path: appease the Senate, grant the people distractions, seek popularity in the moment. Yet he did not. He wrote in his Meditations that a man must do his duty without trembling at praise or blame. His policies were not always loved, but they were grounded in reason, justice, and foresight. Thus Rome endured, and his name lives on—not as a slave of applause, but as a sovereign of principle.
Schröder’s cry is the same. He speaks of important policy decisions—those matters upon which lives depend, where economies are shaped, where wars are averted or ignited. Such choices demand steadiness, not the panic of politicians who tremble before the ballot box. To act only for the sake of re-election is to betray the future for the sake of the present. It is to sacrifice one’s children to feed one’s own ambition. The words carry weight like iron, and the lesson is as old as statecraft itself: short-term gain is the enemy of enduring good.
Yet we must not think this warning applies only to kings and rulers. No, it applies to every soul who walks the earth. How often do we make our decisions by the pressure of the moment, by the desire to be liked, by the fear of disapproval? How often do we, too, live as though an election were coming every “90 days”—judged by friends, family, or society? In doing so, we betray our own deeper vision, our purpose, our integrity. The same weakness that can ruin nations can also ruin lives.
Therefore, let us draw the lesson: live by principle, not by applause. When great choices confront you, do not ask, “Will this make me liked today?” Ask instead, “Will this make me proud tomorrow? Will this endure when the noise of the moment is gone?” Let your heart be anchored in truth and in what is right, not in the tides of opinion.
Practically, this means cultivating courage. Stand firm when you know the right path, even if you walk it alone. Seek wisdom not from the crowd but from conscience, from study, from counsel that is noble. Delay not every choice out of fear of what others might say, but act in alignment with the greater good. And remember, as Schröder’s words remind us: elections, popularity, applause—these come and go like the seasons. But integrity, once lost, may never return.
So, my children, walk as leaders of your own lives. Do not hinge your destiny on the restless cries of the crowd. Look beyond the “90 days” of fleeting approval and set your eyes on the horizon of eternity. In this way, your life will not be a series of frantic compromises, but a steady march toward a legacy that will outlast the storms of the age.
TYPhan Thi Thu Yen
This quote really calls attention to the flaws in a system where politicians are more focused on staying in power than on making good policy decisions. But how can we fix it? Could reforms like longer terms or reduced election frequency allow leaders to make more decisive, long-term choices without the constant pressure of impending elections? Or is this inherent to a system where public opinion is constantly shifting?
NYNguyen Ngoc Nhu Y
Schroder’s words suggest a tension between governance and political self-preservation. Can true leadership emerge when every policy decision is influenced by the upcoming election? Would it be better for the system if leaders were given the freedom to govern without constant fear of political repercussions? How might this affect the quality of governance, and what changes would need to occur for this ideal to be realized?
Nnguyen
Gerhard Schroder raises an important point about the influence of election cycles on decision-making. It's clear that decisions made with the immediate future in mind might not always serve the greater good. However, in a democratic system, is it realistic to expect politicians to disregard the political consequences of their actions? How do we ensure that leaders prioritize the long-term health of the nation, without being consumed by the upcoming election?
DDDang Dung
Schroder’s quote speaks to the difficulty of maintaining integrity in the face of political pressures. It’s a harsh reality that many decisions are swayed by the upcoming election cycle, but should it be that way? Can any leader make bold and necessary policy changes without the looming concern of voter backlash? What reforms are needed to create a more stable political environment where decisions can be made based on long-term vision, not just the next election?
DTdo thuong
This quote by Gerhard Schroder reflects the challenge politicians face in making objective policy decisions when they’re constantly aware of looming elections. Is it possible for a leader to make unbiased decisions when re-election is always just around the corner? How can the political system be restructured to allow for more long-term planning and fewer short-term, election-driven choices that might not be in the country's best interest?