The individual in question is critiqued for his inconsistent political alignment and ineffective leadership as a governor. Initially perceived as a moderate due to his affiliation with various groups, his true liberal stance became apparent upon achieving power, particularly through a voting record supporting anti-war policies and leftist agendas. His governance style is described as authoritarian, with a tendency to demand compliance rather than foster collaboration. This failure to effectively address crises, such as unrest in urban areas, reveals a significant lack of decisive leadership, as he delayed calling for military support during periods of chaos, contributing to a sentiment that he preferred the cities to suffer rather than intervene. Consequently, the state's current state is characterized by divisiveness and disorder, highlighting serious deficiencies in governance and unity.