I'm not saying this paradigm never works. It often works. It's a component of meritocracy. But there is an interesting, permanent shortfall. By focusing on individuals, we keep overlooking the systems.
To some extent, holding one person to account for a system failure is a way to appease anger without making the larger concessions of fixing the system.
Hate is a normal enough human emotion which I define as "anger + disgust, justified or rationalized so it gets stuck." To my knowledge everyone has the first experience, anger + disgust; the second step, applying reason to cling to it, is optional. For me, it's also inadvisable - it's misery and seems to cloud judgment.
So yes, we choose and we are responsible. Leaders take that on more than most. Existentialism gives a great, simple answer here: whatever you do, that's what you did. You're fooling yourself to think otherwise. It's the one aspect of morality that is up for no debate at all.
Let's get back to social change. It's social. And it's change.
For that, I suggest "anger + disgust" is normal and often drives constructive awareness and action. But that is not healthy as a permanent condition, and I think we do have choice in it. And while I don't think we should command each other how to feel, it is totally fine to share how we feel, and make suggestions. My policy? In the end, for clarity and humanity if possible, hate the game, not the player. And then don't even hate the game. Go and fix it. Or at least suggest ways it can be fixed, and talk about ways it can be fixed.
We don't do this enough. We assume the key systems can't be altered. I don't understand why... except that I think we are a little too preoccupied with the model of one individual owning an institution's responsibility.
