Normalize Political Leaders Having the Desire for Power (It Will Lead to More Honest Conversations)
They Won't Have to Spend Money to Brainwash You
In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, candidates spent over $14 billion, while India's 2024 general election saw spending hit ₹1.35 trillion ($16 billion).
These numbers aren’t outliers. They’re reminders of something deeper: political leaders everywhere want power.
From Caesar in Ancient Rome to today’s players in Washington or New Delhi, the hunger for influence cuts across time and culture. Yet we resist that idea. We hold out hope for a leader who governs purely for others. That idealism opens the door to manipulation, where billions are spent on spin—drowning out real policy talk.
But what if we stopped pretending ambition was a flaw?
What if we called it what it is—a constant—and focused on where that ambition leads?
That shift could spark more honest politics, lower the cost of manipulation, and help us choose leaders whose goals overlap with ours.
Power-Seeking Is a Basic Human Desire
The hunger for power isn’t just political. It’s human.
Psychologists and historians agree: people are wired to seek status, influence, and control. Caesar reshaped Rome because he wanted more than just a role—he wanted a legacy. Nehru and Indira Gandhi ruled with a blend of vision and ego. Roosevelt and Reagan were driven not just by policy but by impact.
It’s not good or bad. It just is. And in democracies, it’s necessary—because to win, you’ve got to want it.
The issue isn’t ambition. It’s the way we deny it. We still want leaders to be saints. That fantasy makes it easier for candidates to feed us polished stories instead of real agendas.
Let’s drop the myth. Instead of moralizing motives, let’s assess outcomes. That’s how we get to better leadership.
The Global Price Tag of Propaganda
We pay a massive price for pretending leaders are above ambition.
In 2020, U.S. presidential campaigns blew through $6.6 billion on ads—just one slice of a $14 billion pie. India’s 2024 election funneled ₹1.35 trillion into campaigns, including ₹50 billion on social media manipulation. Brazil’s 2018 election cost over $1 billion. The UK’s 2019 election hit £100 million.
These billions rarely go to actual policy education.
They go to shaping emotion—stoking fear in the U.S., offering handouts in India, fueling division in Brazil. Leaders tear each other down while hiding behind brand-building narratives. And we fall for it because we still believe some leaders are above it all.
What if they could just say it plainly: “I want power—and here’s what I’ll do with it”?
No need for billion-dollar facades. Just clarity. Just policies.
Find Leaders Whose Goals Are Aligned with the Masses
Everyone wants power. But the reason why makes all the difference.
The best leaders chase glory—not money. They want to be remembered for building something bigger than themselves.
Think Mandela, who gave up decades of his life to reshape South Africa. Or Lee Kuan Yew, who helped turn Singapore into a global hub.
These leaders didn’t pretend to be selfless. They tied their ambition to progress. That’s the difference.
In contrast, leaders who chase wealth leave behind broken systems and fading influence.
So when you vote, look for ambition. Just make sure it’s tied to a public win, not a personal one.
Conclusion
Power isn’t a flaw. It’s part of being human.
The billions spent on elections each year don’t reflect national quirks. They reflect a shared tendency to hide ambition behind performance.
If we drop the act, we gain leverage.
Leaders should say what they want. Voters should ask what they’ll get in return. Cynicism is your best guide in this depressing times.
Next time you vote, skip the ad. Ask the harder question: “What’s in it for us?”
And vote like you expect a real answer.