We don’t elect presidents to make our lives more affordable, to ensure that our tribe (political party) stays in charge, or because we think one candidate is more likable than the other. We elect a president to lead our country in dealing with the inevitable challenges our nation will face in the years ahead. That may not be our most conscious thought, but down deep, that’s the choice we make with our votes.

If you have any doubt about that, consider the intense attention directed right now to President Donald Trump’s role in initiating and prosecuting war with Iran. The criticism from the Left has been relentless and withering.

Instead of addressing the threats to our nation and to the world posed by Iran, Democrats prefer to address only the ones they maintain are posed by President Trump. They rage about Trump’s “war of choice,” which Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer deems to be a “colossal failure.” They call for Congress to reconvene and push through a war powers resolution, urge the president’s cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office, and promise to impeach him immediately after winning the midterm elections.

Yes, it’s all about leadership — and the Left’s view is that leadership by Trump is sorely lacking. So let’s take a closer look.

One perspective point: Many of those who serve in the military develop an early and lasting appreciation of why leadership is so important and how it actually works. Reality has a way of delivering rude wake-up calls; many of us found ourselves in potentially perilous circumstances at sea, in the air, or, in some cases, in actual combat — an environment in which leadership (our own or that of those under whom we serve) can have life-or-death consequences.

Beyond our own life experiences, there is the sweeping perspective of history, with its innumerable instances in which strong leadership, for better or worse, changed the course of human events.

From the sum of all of that, we old men in our rocking chairs tend to have strongly held views about this somewhat vague — and often misconstrued — concept called leadership. Here’s what we know for sure:

1.) We don’t need leaders to take the crowd where it already wants to go. The essence of leadership is taking the organization for which one is responsible (a ship’s crew, a family, a nation, a platoon pinned down by enemy fire) in the direction it needs to go, even when everyone (including the leader) would much rather not go there.

2.) It’s a very lonely job, with never a shortage of rock-throwers (usually a safe distance away from the action) pointing out the flaws in the leader’s plan of action. Winston Churchill became Great Britain’s prime minister only because more sensible candidates, sensing doom in the air with Adolf Hitler’s hordes knocking on the door, didn’t want the job.

3.) Critical leadership challenges are inevitably complicated by a sea of uncertainty. Trump is roundly criticized by political opponents for failing to predict with precision what will happen next or how long it will take to finish the job. For example, Representative Seth Moulton (D-MA) is a combat veteran who should know better, but he repeatedly ridicules the president for “getting us into a war without knowing how to get out of it.”

Moulton and his ilk have it exactly backward. Trump’s decision to go to war is not based on perfect clarity about how it will turn out, but rather on clarity about the threat Iran poses and our alternatives for dealing with it.

4.) Good leaders can make mistakes. Two superstar military leaders in World War II — General George Patton and Admiral “Bull” Halsey — were known to be bold, fearless, and not always prudent. Both made serious blunders that cost lives, but at the end of the day, their wartime achievements were instrumental in winning the war. In crunch time, bold leaders win the day.

And once again, Winston Churchill comes to mind. He’s the ne'er-do-well who’d been cashiered after WWI for his miscues as First Lord of the Admiralty, and then stepped up in the next war and changed the course of history for the better.

5.) Leadership comes into play at all levels of the organization (think of that lowly USMC platoon leader who, under intense fire, must somehow inspire his or her troops to “take that hill”). In today’s Iran-war debate, the public and the media are 100% focused on the president, but is there not both need and opportunity for Democrat politicians down the line to take a step back from their party’s Trump-hating blather and encourage their colleagues and constituents to start pulling in the nation’s best interests? On that score, the stand-up posture of Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is an excellent example.

6.) What counts is what leaders do, not what they say. Trump has been pounded by critics (up to and including the pope) for his announced readiness to “destroy civilizations” if need be. With Trump, we’re never sure if his extreme remarks are a clever guise, intended to get his opponents’ attention and maneuver them into negotiating space, or simply a reflection of his Queens upbringing and business life.

No matter — what counts is what he does next, not what he posted on Truth Social.

And perhaps most importantly, time and again we see leaders succeed because they actively support the people they lead (call it “loyalty down”), and because those who are led by them, in turn, give the venture their unconditional support (loyalty up). It is the ultimate in teamwork.

In my view, the level of contempt for Trump expressed by his political opponents and their wholesale rejection of whatever he tries to do has reached the point of gross dereliction of duty. There will always be an opportunity later on for objective assessment of Trump’s actions, potentially prompting reconsideration of ongoing policy and future elections. But for now, in the midst of this struggle, the Democrats’ politically motivated opposition is way over the line.

I simply can’t shake off the impression — ugly as it is — that Trump’s opponents want him to fail far more than they want our nation to succeed. We can’t live with that.