Presidents, Prime Ministers, Dictators

[Stavros]

Arnie in a recent thread suggested that much of the ridicule of Herman Cain is a form of veiled racism. I think he has a point, even if Mr Cain does lend himself to ridicule for being so ill-informed on major news stories. George W Bush was ridiculed for the way he mangled words, but he was a Yale and a Harvard graduate so he must have had some intellectual skills

But, what is it that people expect of their leaders, be they Presidents, Prime Ministers, Queens and Kings or Dictators? Is there some expectation that they should be wise and knowledgeable, capable of providing an informed response to any question?

I think, North Korea aside, we have gone beyond the days when Stalin could be praised for his major contributions to the study of linguistics (which if true is probably not actually about lingustics but words in action), but by the same token, why do some leaders come across as being out of the loop on so many day to day things we all know about -is it because holding office removes one from reality?

Today in The Guardian, an excellent article on the decline of the British economy reveals that Tony Blair got his first mobile phone when he left office in 2007 -presumably he was advised not to have one because his media/press advisers were afraid it would be hacked (?)- and this is what the apostle of the knowledge economy is claimed to have said in his first text to press secretary Alastair Campbell:

"This is amazing, you can send words on a phone."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/16/why-britain-doesnt-make-things-manufacturing

[russtafa]

the media is the prince of lies

[trish]

We shouldn’t expect our leaders to be particle physicists, nobel prize winning economists or previous captains of industry or policy wonks. I have colleagues who are literally geniuses in their fields but don’t know how to carry on diner conversation if it’s not about the latest in their fields of ob[s]ession. I might add that most of the geniuses I know have incredibly diverse interests and talents. I don’t expect our political leaders to be geniuses, but I do expect them to have diverse interests and talents. I expect them to have a ready knowledge of history, current affairs and law. I expect their views to be well considered, influenced, informed and tempered by the [] views of others. I expect our leaders to have a healthy respect for the knowledge and experience of recognized experts in the sciences related to energy, climate, agriculture, minerals, resources, economics, military strategy etc. etc. I expect their confidence on any issue to be commensurate with their demonstrated knowledge and experience related to the issue. I would like a leader who doesn’t have to study to stay current, but is current because their love of reading and conversation keeps them current (not that they don’t study, but study is not a boring chore they have to endure for the purposes campaigning[)]. I expect our leaders to have a friends whom they love, family and influences who aren't necessarily scientists, captains of industry or politicians...people who work behind counters, in assembly lines, soldiers, or people without work and looking. I could go on, but I’ll stop here for now.

[Prospero]

I AGREE WITH TRISH ON THIS.....
We shouldn’t expect our leaders to be particle physicists, nobel prize winning economists or previous captains of industry or policy wonks.........I don’t expect our political leaders to be geniuses, but I do expect them to have diverse interests and talents. I expect them to have a ready knowledge of history, current affairs and law. (And economics) I expect their views to be well considered, influenced, informed and tempered by the views views of others. I expect our leaders to have a healthy respect for the knowledge and experience of recognized experts in the sciences related to energy, climate, agriculture, minerals, resources, economics, military strategy etc. etc. I expect their confidence on any issue to be commensurate with their demonstrated knowledge and experience related to the issue. I would like a leader who doesn’t have to study to stay current, but is current because their love of reading and conversation keeps them current (not that they don’t study, but study is not a boring chore they have to endure for the purposes campaigning. I expect our leaders to have a friends whom they love, family and influences who aren't necessarily scientists, captains of industry or politicians...people who work behind counters, in assembly lines, soldiers, or people without work and looking. I could go on, but I’ll stop here for now.

We were often told that the bedside reading of various presidnts qnd world leaders were such words as the various books on geopolitics by Robert Kaplan or on Islam by pseudo-experts like Bernard lewis. I shudder to think what people such as Sarah Palin (no longer a candidate), the pizza guy or the rest of the Republican contenders read. Possibly the Bible and in the case of Mitt Romney the book of Mormon. As the putative leader of the free world we need a leader who is very bright and informed but with a mind that can move swiftly and decisively and who has the capacity to evaluate and look at all the various issues involved in a situation before taking a decision - not one whose decisions re based on blind ideology (of right or left.)
Interestingly Tony Blair recently wrote about the books which had influenced him most profoundly.A very catholic list - ranging from the Bible to Marx but with some key works of literature , science and economics thrown in.

[trish]

I'll accept the addition of "economics" as a friendly amendment.

I didn't know that about Tony Blair, but I'm not surprised. In the U.S. we regard, "What newspapers do you read?" as a gotcha-question.

[hippifried]

In the U.S. we regard, "What newspapers do you read?" as a gotcha-question.
That was never the case before Sara Palin blew onto the scene & made ignorance chic. Not bothering to read newspapers could have easily been shrugged off, but she tried to lie about it & then started whining about how unfair it is to try & find out if she knows anything at all. Now Michelle Bachman won't talk to anybody who might interrupt her rant long enough to ask a legit question. The Palin whine is dishonest. The "ignorant is the new smart" argument is dishonest. The world knows who James Bond is because somebody asked JFK what he was reading. (If you've ever read Ian Flemming, the books are just silly scenarios, with lots of gratuitous violence to package all the graphic sex. Just soft porn.) It doesn't matter what it is. It's a stock question for anyone in power or seeking it. Reading was always assumed until now.


Oh by the way, Prospero,
Blair might get away with it, but this is America. In the current climate, any politition who admits to even considering reading Marx could get tarred & feathered, & run out of the country on a rail.

[Prospero]

Reading Marx is hard going.(Palin and Bachmann would probably think you meant that jewish leftie Groucho if asked) Reading a good book about Marx and his basic ideas would seem to be essentially political reading whatever your position. Back in the day we also read a guy called Herbert Marcuse. i bet he is not even in print now.

[Stavros]

Trish has covered the angles well, notably the point that if a candidate isn't an expert on some issue, there should always be an adviser who can fill the gap -I am surpised that Cain has a team which doesn't brief him on a range of topics, if they dont know much about Libya that is a real weakness.

Politicians normally have vastly more self-confidence than most people, so the intellectual depth they can bring to policy debates should also give them a reputation for trust that people like too, trust coming from from someone who knows what he is talking about and why -critics of Obama argue that he makes a great speech but doesn't make good policy, that he is, in effect a lighweight. I don't think Clinton was much of an intellect, but like Reagan he had communication skills.

What has puzzled and annoyed me about Blair on this is not what he read when he was at Oxford, but why he lived through one crisis after another in the Middle East without ever choosing to go there to meet the Arabs, eat their food, ask them what it is that they want from life. And yet at some point he became politically ambitious enough to propel himself towards the upper reaches of politics -then when he got there, he relied for advice on the Middle East on Zionists, and rejected the advice offered by the academics with years of experience in the region. To me, that is a failure of judgement, not balancing arguments before making a decision. Gordon Brown was a frequent visitor to Israel with his clergyman father, like Harold Wilson in the 1960s his bias has never been hidden.

A final point also from the Middle East. Over many decades the Israeli's have reneged on agreements, have repudiated international law and in the process filleted out any centrist Palestinian policians who were both popular and could at one time deliver -Hanan Ashrawi and Haydar Abdul Shafi to take two examples. When the centre ground fails, and leaves the field, only extremists remain, making compromise that more difficult.

When the best minds do not go into politics, I suggest, our choice of candidates is limited to people whom, ten years ago, would never have got within a mile of holding office -it is easy to ridicule extremists like Michele Bachmann, we have plenty of nutters in the British parliament, but they are now the candidates people are expected to choose from. Hippifried's ignorance is the new smart is chilling indeed.

Not just in Israel, but in Africa, I am told also in India -why do the brightest minds scorn a career in politics?

[Gambino]

I'd be happy with just some common sense, and working for the betterment of the country they are running. Take Australia Julie gilliard, she thinks it's a great idea to sell uranium to India, nothing against India but they haven't signed the nuclear proliferation treaty, and are awfully close to countries that aren't that trustworthy themselves, but oh noes, she need new shoes so the world has to possibly get screwed through her lack of common sense

[Ben]

Arnie in a recent thread suggested that much of the ridicule of Herman Cain is a form of veiled racism. I think he has a point, even if Mr Cain does lend himself to ridicule for being so ill-informed on major news stories. George W Bush was ridiculed for the way he mangled words, but he was a Yale and a Harvard graduate so he must have had some intellectual skills

But, what is it that people expect of their leaders, be they Presidents, Prime Ministers, Queens and Kings or Dictators? Is there some expectation that they should be wise and knowledgeable, capable of providing an informed response to any question?

I think, North Korea aside, we have gone beyond the days when Stalin could be praised for his major contributions to the study of linguistics (which if true is probably not actually about lingustics but words in action), but by the same token, why do some leaders come across as being out of the loop on so many day to day things we all know about -is it because holding office removes one from reality?

Today in The Guardian, an excellent article on the decline of the British economy reveals that Tony Blair got his first mobile phone when he left office in 2007 -presumably he was advised not to have one because his media/press advisers were afraid it would be hacked (?)- and this is what the apostle of the knowledge economy is claimed to have said in his first text to press secretary Alastair Campbell:

"This is amazing, you can send words on a phone."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/16/why-britain-doesnt-make-things-manufacturing

Bush got into Harvard because big Daddy wrote a big check. Anyway, the people who rule the world go to Harvard. Think: Obama.
At Harvard they teach you how to walk, how to talk. Again, people who rule the world go there. That's the function of Harvard. (But the whole education system is designed to make people stupid and obedient. That's the core function. Obedience is key.)
I can't say anything about Yale. (And, of course, a lot of the loathing toward Obama comes from the fact that he's black. I'm not a fan of Obama's. But FOCUS on his policies. Same with Cain. Cain, like Obama, has no core beliefs and doesn't care about issues.
The only one that is very principled is Ron Paul. And maybe Jon Huntsman. Paul is extremely principled. And is good with respect to foreign policy and some domestic issues. I think his fervor with pure free markets is insane. But he believes it can work. And that prices on everything would come way down. Maybe he's right. Maybe he's wrong.)
And the BEST POLITICAL LEADERS are the ones who are, well, corrupt and lazy.

[russtafa]

i'd be happy with just some common sense, and working for the betterment of the country they are running. Take australia julie gilliard, she thinks it's a great idea to sell uranium to india, nothing against india but they haven't signed the nuclear proliferation treaty, and are awfully close to countries that aren't that trustworthy themselves, but oh noes, she need new shoes so the world has to possibly get screwed through her lack of common sense
that bitch is the most hated pm ever

[Stavros]

And the BEST POLITICAL LEADERS are the ones who are, well, corrupt and lazy.

Really, Ben if you weren't being provocative or facetious I would say you are mad.

My understanding is that Harvard and Yale yield their best benefits to graduate students rather than to undergrads, mainly because of the difference in the schedule of lectures and so forth -but if choosing a university for one's children is an issue and you could afford it, Harvard, Yale, the Ivy League and so on, have fabulous assets for learning -they are in the top quartile of world education institutions for a reason. Sending your children there would not be a mistake, and even if they don't enjoy it, its on their CV/resume for ever after. These places are desirable; but what might not be desirable is the creation of a political elite who become leaders in their countries because of their connections rather than their abilities.

And yet, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, a political leader whom I admire today more than any other, is an Oxford graduate.

In 1977 John Griffifth published a book in the UK called The Politics of the Judiciary in which his analysis of the background of the Bench showed they had all graduated from a small nucleus of universities and, in effect, once they got into the groove that runs from Chambers to Court most of the people they met were people they had known for years -in effect, a private club whose decisions for that reasons were not always neutral and shaped by the law alone. The deluge of correspondence the reviews of his book created reverberated until his death a while ago, but the suspicion remains that the Law is a closed shop, and after all, a substantial number of our politicians come from the law. I am not saying that it is wrong but there have to be alternatives.

Bit of a diversion but Griffith's obiturary in The Guardian is here if you want to read it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/may/25/john-griffith-obituary

[hippifried]

Ben,
Bushes go to Yale, not Harvard. They have a "legacy" there. Both of those schools are considered top of the line for the study of law. Very expensive. You don't get into either school without backing of some sort, like scholarship, grants, legacy or whatever.

I agree that Ron Paul has principles. He's also an inflexible ideologue, & most of his principles are about being one & staying that way. I can't speak for everybody, but I bet I'm speaking for most when I say I don't want a fanatic in the Whitehouse. That crackpot philosophy he espouses is unrealistic & doesn't work in practice. I've read & listened to him over the years & I really don't think he understands the job or powers of the POTUS. He consistently drws 4% to 6%. He's never going to be President because his negatives outweigh his principles. Deliberate ignorance & philosophical rigidity aren't attributes you seek for a job that demands intelligent & knowlegable pragmatism. That's the problem with most of the Republican field of candidates.

[Ben]

And the BEST POLITICAL LEADERS are the ones who are, well, corrupt and lazy.

[/QUOTE]Really, Ben if you weren't being provocative or facetious I would say you are mad. [/QUOTE]

I'm being facetious. But the best leader is no leader.
I mean, a leaderless society, as it were, would be ideal. Any form of concentrated power -- whether it be a CEO or a President or a Prime Minister -- is quite dangerous and very undemocratic. (In theory, well, democracy is supposed to be that people run their own affairs. So, you'd transfer power down. And, too, power wouldn't be vertical; it'd be horizontal. So, you'd transfer power to working people and communities. It'd be quite democratic.
Now, would a leaderless society work? Who knows. It might. It might not. I mean, it's never been tried.... It could turn out to be disastrous.
I mean, what's a union after all but democracy in the workplace.)
Now you can be completely opposed to democracy. That's fine. It's your choice. But you'd be a: classic conservative. One who believes in elite rule. I disagree with that notion. But others certainly support it. I mean, if you study the political class, as it were, you'll find they have a disdain for meaningful democracy. Plus, as everyone knows, money plays a HUGE part in our political system. And those with the wealth (corporations) make the laws. Sad. But it's true.

[Stavros]

Not sure I agree with that -Roosevelt famously brought people together with contrary views on policy; he liked to listen to the arguments for and against before making a decision; in that sense he was like a lot of leaders who do not concentrate power at the top but share it -and that is democratic after all, their argument being that the public have voted for the policy programme as a whole even if they disagree with some of its parts; and their absence from the White House or No 10 discussions, is compensated for through debates in Congress/Parliament, on tv and so on.

Clement Attlee expected his ministers to handle their briefs and make their own decisions, he did so because he trusted them -it was the time when Cabinet government meant something. When did a Prime Minister last fail to get his own government to refuse a policy he wanted, in cabinet, after a discussion? We have two foreign secretaries in the UK - the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the Prime Minister -only one of them can make policy, and you know who that is.

The danger is when you have someone making decisions who has made up his (or her) mind and cannot be swayed, be it weapons of mass destruction (Bush/Cheney) or the designation of marijuana as enemy number one in the USA (Nixon). Democracy means that there are times when a leader has to be humble, to say -Sorry, I got that wrong. Blair has done nothing but defend his decision to send British troops to Iraq, even though that decision was based on feeble intelligence, faulty military strategy, and a staggering disregard for costs, human and financial. That, to me, is poor leadership and I would expect a much better performance from a Prime Minister or President.

[beandip]

He's also an inflexible ideologue, & most of his principles are about being one & staying that way. I can't speak for everybody, but I bet I'm speaking for most when I say I don't want a fanatic in the Whitehouse. That crackpot philosophy he espouses is unrealistic & doesn't work in practice.

Yea, you're right. Fuck that stooooopid Constitution.

Fuck free speech.

Fuck second amendment rights.

We need to ramp up a few more wars too while we're at it.

Go take a few more hits of the bong there, asshat.

[hippifried]

Yea, you're right. Fuck that stooooopid Constitution.

Fuck free speech.

Fuck second amendment rights.

We need to ramp up a few more wars too while we're at it.

Go take a few more hits of the bong there, asshat.
Aha!! There it is. The universal wingnut answer to life, the universe, & everything.

Hey chippy,
I don't mind being quoted. There's plenty to choose from. But you aten't smart to analyze what I say, put words in my mouth, or "read between the lines". There isn't anything between the lines, & you're too stupid to make something up that's coherent. All you can do is parrot the wingnut word salad, & you're not even good at that. Ever had an original thought? Yeah, I didn't think so. Be sure to let me know if you ever collect enough alms in the grocery store parking lot to buy yourself some comprehention.

[Stavros]

Reminds me of a moment in a bar during the annual conference of my Union (NUPE, Bournemouth 1984). I headed into town with a man, then in his 60s, who had been in the Communist Party since he was 15. We were in the pub talking politics of course, when a thirty-something who had been listening in (and drinking) interrupted: You know what I would say to Maggie Thatcher? OK, you won the election. Now FUCK OFF'. He repeated this several times and with some passion, until melting into the crowd as old Joe and I just shook our heads...