I'm not sure I agree with it. (First, I don't believe the state governments are "under" the Presidency... *nods to the 12th Amendment* ... but that's a bit of a separate issue.)
Your definition of leadership seems (to me) to mean that "I was under orders to [do whatever]" would be a valid defense for (e.g.) soldiers, because their leader should take the blame for anything they do. Or do you mean that when leadership exists, blame is multiplied to everyone in the command structure?
For that matter, I don't think leaders should get all the credit for good things, either, unless they were their idea to begin with. Some credit, maybe, but not all, and not even most.
But maybe I'm just weird like that. It'd be entirely possible. |
