The Responsibilities of a leader

[blah the Prussian]

So my little sister dragged me to see Frozen. I liked it fine, but there was one aspect that I found I was completely alone on: I thought Elsa's parents did the right thing. Seeing the utter devastation done to Arrendelle, they were only doing what was best for their nation. My opinion stems from my belief that leaders must always do what is best for their nation and people, even if it means directly or indirectly hurting those close to them. So what is more important, or should be more important, to a ruler: family, or their nation?

[Knight]

I'm going to have to say nation.

[Acacia Sgt]

Then thing is though, didn't the problem rose up because of their actions towards Elsa? The way I see it, it wasn't "Do A to avoid B or do B to avoid A", but rather, "Doing B to avoid A is precisely what ended up causing A anyway".

[blah the Prussian]

Then thing is though, didn't the problem rose up because of their actions towards Elsa? The way I see it, it wasn't "Do A to avoid B or do B to avoid A", but rather, "Doing B to avoid A is precisely what ended up causing A anyway".

Yeah, but she would have lost control anyway.

[Rewjeo]

As a leader, the nation (and I would argue humanity beyond that), although I don't think this is the place to discuss Frozen unless it actually contributes to the discussion of leadership.

[Phoenix Wright]

the nation, unquestionably. it comes with hard decisions, but being the leader of a nation was never said to be easy.

[DragonLord]

I like to think that a true leader would sacrifice for the good of the nation, in this case their family.

[Acacia Sgt]

Yeah, but she would have lost control anyway.

Hm, how so? If her state at the end of the movie is any indication, it probably wouldn't if she hadn't had the upbringing she went through. Well, granted, it wouldn't be the same as her state at the end of the movie, but it wouldn't be like the one at the beginning of the movie, which was very prone for disaster, which it did.

Anyway, for the question itself, I'd say... hmm... to me that's a tough question. It's easy to see the short-term consequences, but long-term... for all we know, the choice ends up hurting the other anyway. Would it be really be worth it in the end? Who knows, we never know unless we make the choice.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Acacia Sgt

[blah the Prussian]

Okay, so here's a new question: how far must a leader go for the good of their nation? At what point is doing something against the interests of the nation acceptable?

[eclipse]

Just a quick reminder - not everyone has seen Frozen.

[Rehab]

Regarding the situation in Frozen:

When you're the leader in a hereditary monarchy, it's not very smart to saddle your heir with emotional problems, which is something I thought their parenting decisions were begging to happen. It's a tough job, and you do have to either prepare your kid for it or figure out how succession's going to work right quick, but they only reinforced Elsa's fear of revealing herself. They left her both totally unprepared to handle the responsibility that'd be on her shoulders once they were gone, and scared of interacting with people in an inevitable occupation where that's impossible to escape.

I thought they were awful at both ideal parenting and raising an heir, and that the movie can in part be read as a metaphor for a specific aspect of depression/mental illness: "keeping it in the family" isn't just awful to your kids, it's asking for serious collateral damage.

Seriously I was mad at them the whole damn movie

Edited May 8, 2014 by Rehab

[blah the Prussian]

Regarding the situation in Frozen:

When you're the leader in a hereditary monarchy, it's not very smart to saddle your heir with emotional problems, which is something I thought their parenting decisions were begging to happen. It's a tough job, and you do have to either prepare your kid for it or figure out how succession's going to work right quick, but they only reinforced Elsa's fear of revealing herself. They left her both totally unprepared to handle the responsibility that'd be on her shoulders once they were gone, and scared of interacting with people in an inevitable occupation where that's impossible to escape.

I thought they were awful at both ideal parenting and raising an heir, and that the movie can in part be read as a metaphor for a specific aspect of depression/mental illness: "keeping it in the family" isn't just awful to your kids, it's asking for serious collateral damage.

Seriously I was mad at them the whole damn movie

I understand what you are saying, but they could have just made Anna heir. Also, this thread is more about what responsibility than Frozen.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

i'd say the nation.

needs the many outweigh the needs of the few, etc etc etc.

that and if your a leader/ruler/emperor/insert title here chances are you have the power to create a big enough family in case anything should happen anyways.

[Xator Nova]

The nation, definitely. Personal stuff shouldn't affect what is the best for the people you're in charge of.

It requires a lot of bravery to do that, though, which is the reason why it is so hard to be a good leader.

...

Regarding Frozen...

The parents' intention was fine. It's their responsibility to prevent catastrophes in the kingdom. Teaching Elsa how to control her powers is obviously the best solution.

However, what wasn't right is how they handled it. They shouldn't have scared Elsa of herself, nor should've they expected her to repress her emotions. They didn't understand how psychology or Elsa's powers work. In that way, they worsened the situation, which is why they're so badly regarded by the fandom.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Xator Nova

[Chiki]

I'm not sure if this is on topic, but I've always found it strange when leaders take responsibility for their workers. Is it Obama's fault if the people in charge of making the health care website are stupid? Maybe partially, but it's still strange for leaders to say things like "I take full responsibility for blah blah." No pun intended.

[Rehab]

I understand what you are saying, but they could have just made Anna heir. Also, this thread is more about what responsibility than Frozen.

Part of my intended point was that they were an example of rulers who effectively sacrificed their family's well-being because they thought that was the best thing for the country/their responsibilities, but they actually fucked up their family and fucked up their responsibility to the nation, because the two weren't just (in the case of the hereditary monarchy) not mutually exclusive, they (responsibility to their family and responsibility to their nation) were effectively the same thing.

(also, yes, them not discussing making Anna the heir was indeed yet one more fuckup on their part)

I imagine that's kinda feudalism in a nutshell- it's literally part of the responsibility of a hereditary leadership to keep relationships with the other people in the realm who'll inherit power as stable as possible. At least, if the rulers actually care about the state and future of the people they rule. Y'know, ideally.

In a democracy, yeah, the rules there might be a little different. Particularly here in the U.S., campaigning for president basically requires not only uprooting your family, assuming you don't live in D.C., but either taking them around the country with you on campaigns, or effectively leaving them (I imagine?) to travel the (bigass) country until you've won the election, and (ideally) you're even more beholden to the wants of the people you rule/serve, which (again, I imagine) might make you even less available to your family. And not only (in many modern situations) does your family go from being relatively normal to having at least minor celebrity status and the watchful eye of an equivalent to the Secret Service thrust on them, but also if you're the spouse, your own career gets uprooted a bit. Michelle Obama was, what, a bigwig at some household name Ivy League school before Barack got elected? No disrespect meant to community organizers or anything, but one could definitely argue that relatively speaking, she got a bit gipped in the presidential arrangement there. (there might be an argument for turning "First Lady" into a title rather than an occupation in there somewhere)

So, yeah. I kinda get thinking of responsibility to country/family as a one-or-the-other dichotomy in an electoral system. But I wouldn't say it's the same for every form of government.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Rehab

[blah the Prussian]

Part of my intended point was that they were an example of rulers who effectively sacrificed their family's well-being because they thought that was the best thing for the country/their responsibilities, but they actually fucked up their family and fucked up their responsibility to the nation, because the two weren't just (in the case of the hereditary monarchy) not mutually exclusive, they (responsibility to their family and responsibility to their nation) were effectively the same thing.

(also, yes, them not discussing making Anna the heir was indeed yet one more fuckup on their part)

I imagine that's kinda feudalism in a nutshell- it's literally part of the responsibility of a hereditary leadership to keep relationships with the other people in the realm who'll inherit power as stable as possible. At least, if the rulers actually care about the state and future of the people they rule. Y'know, ideally.

In a democracy, yeah, the rules there might be a little different. Particularly here in the U.S., campaigning for president basically requires not only uprooting your family, assuming you don't live in D.C., but either taking them around the country with you on campaigns, or effectively leaving them (I imagine?) to travel the (bigass) country until you've won the election, and (ideally) you're even more beholden to the wants of the people you rule/serve, which (again, I imagine) might make you even less available to your family. And not only (in many modern situations) does your family go from being relatively normal to having at least minor celebrity status and the watchful eye of an equivalent to the Secret Service thrust on them, but also if you're the spouse, your own career gets uprooted a bit. Michelle Obama was, what, a bigwig at some household name Ivy League school before Barack got elected? No disrespect meant to community organizers or anything, but one could definitely argue that relatively speaking, she got a bit gipped in the presidential arrangement there. (there might be an argument for turning "First Lady" into a title rather than an occupation in there somewhere)

So, yeah. I kinda get thinking of responsibility to country/family as a one-or-the-other dichotomy in an electoral system. But I wouldn't say it's the same for every form of government.

Ultimately, though, in this particular case, the effects of Elsa letting it go (pun intended) were far more devastating than the psychological problems. Trade was destroyed, the economy was obliterated, and there is no way no one died. And hell, the regents seemed to be doing a perfectly fine job of running the nation. I myself would have sent her away so there would be no risk of her doing anything to the realm. Ultimately, the whole problem would have been fixed if they had made Anna heir. But here's a different question: what should they have done if some random pea sent girl got the powers?

[Zanarkin]

Yeah, but she would have lost control anyway.

[spoiler=movie spoilers]She would have learned much sooner that her ice powers could be undone with love. Instead she was taught to hide and fear her powers simply because it was not understood. I think her parents were more concerned for Elsa's well-being seeing as she'd probably be treated as a witch or something and people would try to get rid of her in one way or another. the parents didn't want that so they hid her from the world. The reason her "letting go" was so destructive was because she had repressed them for so long and didn't know how to control her powers. She was afraid of it and let her powers control her through that fear. What would have been better in my opinion would have been to help Elsa control her powers. This is obviously possible considering this is what she does through all of the movie after the eternal winter curse she puts on the place.

Although, for a ruler a nation should be more important. While his family is probably important to him, he decided to lead lots of people towards advancement (this is a more idealist view atleast, and isn't true most of the time, A lot of the times rulers are just there for personal gain).

Edited May 8, 2014 by SlayerX

[Dwalin2010]

In my opinion, choosing the nation as "a political entity" or as "its people and their lives" are 2 different things. It may be understandable if the ruler sacrifices the lives of a few to save millions, but it's in no way justifiable if he sacrifices somebody to increase the political power of the nation, especially if this nation is already well-off and not in ruins.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[blah the Prussian]

[spoiler=movie spoilers]She would have learned much sooner that her ice powers could be undone with love. Instead she was taught to hide and fear her powers simply because it was not understood. I think her parents were more concerned for Elsa's well-being seeing as she'd probably be treated as a witch or something and people would try to get rid of her in one way or another. the parents didn't want that so they hid her from the world. The reason her "letting go" was so destructive was because she had repressed them for so long and didn't know how to control her powers. She was afraid of it and let her powers control her through that fear. What would have been better in my opinion would have been to help Elsa control her powers. This is obviously possible considering this is what she does through all of the movie after the eternal winter curse she puts on the place.

Although, for a ruler a nation should be more important. While his family is probably important to him, he decided to lead lots of people towards advancement (this is a more idealist view atleast, and isn't true most of the time, A lot of the times rulers are just there for personal gain).

In regards to Frozen, there was a risk that she would lose control before she could control her powers. Ideally, a ruler is concerned for the welfare of their nation.

[Zanarkin]

In regards to Frozen, there was a risk that she would lose control before she could control her powers. Ideally, a ruler is concerned for the welfare of their nation.

When she was younger however, her powers were developing as she grew (hence the need for the new gloves in the song). She could have been successfully taught how to control them and if it did go out of control it likely wouldn't have been as bad as putting the whole place under winter. There is also the possibility she could have learned the ability of reverting the ice if it did go out of control. Not to mention that the Troll king (?) clearly knew something about Elsa's magic so he could have been able to help in that. Also, the king and queen weren't so concerned for the people being harmed, they were concerned for the people fearing Elsa's power (which could result in Elsa being harmed). The king and queen were perfectly fine with Elsa's power seeing as they allowed Elsa to play with her sister before she almost killed her. Some reading of the wiki suggest that statement was not entirely true. However, they did know that Elsa's powers are controlled by emotions. He even tells them that fear can cause the powers to run out of control. However, all they do is hide her, tell her to hide her powers, and stop her from having any human contact.

From Wiki:

For instance, if she's happy and at peace, her powers would be simple to control, but should fear consume her, things can run amuck and threaten those around her instantly, telling Elsa fear will be her enemy.

Edited May 9, 2014 by SlayerX

[Rehab]

Exiling Stella might've been a bit much even if they erred on the side of caution passing down the throne: although this might've been because of how they were being raised rather than their natural predispositions, while coming of age Anna seemed plenty curious about the world and eager to engage with it, and yeah, there's a possibility that making her the heir would've taken a lot of pressure off of Stella's shoulders and made the throne more stable at the same time.

Though, that might've been a slightly separate calculus. If Elsa willingly gave up her birthright, it wouldn't have been the only time (in actual history) that the heir to a throne said "pass" and let the job fall to a younger sibling, but if that pissed Elsa off, one might indeed view having an ambitious/resentful second-in-line with unique, devastating magical power as being a problem.

And if a random peasant girl got the powers? One could easily view them as an asset to any country in terms of trade, climate-engineering, and even military power, but then again, admittedly they were so strong that an emotionally damaged teenager froze (huh huh) the country in place without trying. If something like that actually happened, and I were in a position to influence the response to it, I would lean towards cautiously studying the witch's powers and getting a frank appraisal of their potential worth, preferably while taking care not to piss them off in the process.

[blah the Prussian]

Exiling Stella might've been a bit much even if they erred on the side of caution passing down the throne: although this might've been because of how they were being raised rather than their natural predispositions, while coming of age Anna seemed plenty curious about the world and eager to engage with it, and yeah, there's a possibility that making her the heir would've taken a lot of pressure off of Stella's shoulders and made the throne more stable at the same time.

Though, that might've been a slightly separate calculus. If Elsa willingly gave up her birthright, it wouldn't have been the only time (in actual history) that the heir to a throne said "pass" and let the job fall to a younger sibling, but if that pissed Elsa off, one might indeed view having an ambitious/resentful second-in-line with unique, devastating magical power as being a problem.

And if a random peasant girl got the powers? One could easily view them as an asset to any country in terms of trade, climate-engineering, and even military power, but then again, admittedly they were so strong that an emotionally damaged teenager froze (huh huh) the country in place without trying. If something like that actually happened, and I were in a position to influence the response to it, I would lean towards cautiously studying the witch's powers and getting a frank appraisal of their potential worth, preferably while taking care not to piss them off in the process.

Assume that the kid could not control her powers, and was a threat to the nation. What should be done?

[Rehab]

First thoughts that come to mind are: study, spy on, banish, kill, in that order of preference/increasing levels of threatening. IMO

(for anybody who hasn't seen it, getting into slightly heavier spoiler territory for Frozen. fair warning, I guess?)

It might depend on the level of threat they constitute, though this is getting deeper into total fantasy scenarios (then again, though, it might be vaguely analogous to something like staring down the introduction of new weapons technology, like firearms in the renaissance maybe?). The people in the movie understood the nature of the magic and its wielder(s) very poorly, and I imagine that anybody who was found to have them would inevitably put under emotional duress, and therefore be made dangerous pretty quickly, but if they just did a bit of property damage or hurt a single person, one might still be able to easily argue that we don't understand the magic, and could learn to control it without hurting the wielder. Once the witch either kills a lot of people or creates a nuclear winter, that might become a less tenable position.

I suppose it comes down to a couple of things: how the witch acts, and how the country views its subjects (and responds to them). I'm imagining it being argued by an advocate of the witch, or a sympathetic ruler, that they're a citizen of the nation, and deserve the same rights and treatment as any other citizen, as long as they've committed no crimes.* Thinking back to what the Weselton dude argued and how tense it was in the capital, though, the ruler also might have to take into account whether their subjects would rebel in one way or another, like if they were afraid enough of the witch to disobey the ruler's orders to leave the witch alone. Or if things were the other way around, and the subjects were more sympathetic to the witch than the ruler.

*though depending on the era, human rights and fair trials might not be big seriously-taken things yet, I guess

I wonder whether one sticking point might be whether one thinks the ruler should put their foot down in either case, even if it meant facing a violent rebellion (briefly assuming the witch isn't part of the equation). In the former, the ruler would be making a stand of sorts for human rights, but possibly at the cost of lives if they had to put down a rebellion. If they capitulated and executed the witch under pressure, it might set a nasty precedent for the treatment of citizens somehow deemed a public threat. And if in executing the witch, they had to put down a rebellion on top of that, one might argue they'd be fulfilling the principle of protecting the greater good by being on "the safe side," but they'd be taking even more lives to fulfill it.

I guess how one weighs that last scenario against the one where the ruler spares the witch, they put down a rebellion for it, and the witch turns out to be destructive (which was the source of a good bit of tension as the worst-case-ending in the movie) might decide where one would stand on the decision.

Ideally, I'd still be pulling for "spare the witch and work things out," but it could turn into a tough choice, and it might be harder for me to argue against doing otherwise. That is, unless and until the witch turns overtly hostile, then there'd be little choice left.

(To any third parties reading, yes, I realize talking about what happened in Frozen and other possible scenarios that might've played out in the story with this level of seriousness might seem a bit ridiculous. To which, I might respond:

s-shut up we're all nerds here, this is a fire emblem forum ;n;)

Edited May 9, 2014 by Rehab

[Arrout]

Nation is far more important than family.

A situation like this is seen in Fire Emblem games too, It'd be another good example.

Lucia was held captive by Ludveck, and she was Elincia's foster sibling.

And she had to choose betwen resigning the crown to Ludveck to free Lucia, or see Lucia die, and she chose to see Lucia die.