Experience
I had just read an article about how over rated experience is for a President of the US of A by Scott Adams. His article can be distilled into these points.
There are no individual political decision by most educated people:
Now, I totally agree with the fact that having world class advisers helps. Only fools intend to run entire countries by themselves.
Now why do we want experienced political leaders to lead us? Basically, the voters believe that if the person has been close to the position of power and has proven not to corrupted, overwhelmed or daunted by the difficulties of leadership, one should be able to better suit in doing the actual job. The voters sometimes make mistakes in the case of Nixon but voters are only human.
Secondly, experience is like name recognition. It helps attract the right people. Or the right advisers. If you are an unknown, you may attract sycophants or other self serving people to your side. Let me give the example of a new sports team in the NFL (You can use your favourite sports league like NBA or EPL). Would you be able to attract the best players? Few established players would bother to switch to a new sports team if they are currently having a good gig. Most established stars will go over to a team that has sufficient people in their roosters. The stars also like to see some other competent team members before switching. Some mercenaries might make a switch if you pay them enough. In those cases, the mercenaries have a distressing habit to abandon their pay masters when the situation is not suitable. Point is that unknowns seldom get the best advisers.
But now, I believe that some observers will point that army generals have had coups. The point is that we are dealing with human with their fallibilities. Still the fact that most countries persist with having generals leading their armies despite the risk of coups means that the risk is acceptable. While we are on the subject of military coups, I like to point that most countries that are run by military dictators seldom prosper economically even when the generals are not enriching themselves. Logically, the wisest advisers would have been available to advise the generals within an hour on the difficulties of running a nation. The successful military leader who had been able to lead his country to great success is quite rare. Most of his peers are clearly not interested in studying his methods. (I know I maybe sexist by assuming the general to be male but I cannot recall a female general leading a successful coup in history.)
What if the topic cannot be summarised in one hour? Should the advisers run prep school for the president up to speed for all topics? (This is how the Congress works. This is how the Senate works. That is a State's issue. This is what the Constitution states.). Is a four year prep-school enough for a rookie to survive? What if the president decides that he or she is not willing to listen to the adviser or smarter than the adviser and chose not to listen? Or choose to listen to the advisers that flatter or selectively edit the facts? Or even getting the right people to work together? Or even deciding which topic to focus on? I like to know which general in the US Army believes that he or she can summarise the issue of ISIS within one hour. Because I sure don't think ISIS or the water in Flint Michigan is an hour long problem. Moreover, by the time the advisers have summarised the issue in a one hour sound bit, the opportunity to make a decision maybe long gone.
I know that the US President does get briefing from time to time but I am also sure that the President's job is more than hour long briefings with a simple yes or no or even multiple choice decision at the end. Basically all claims that the President job can be simplified sounds like the claim
that Trump intends to let Kasich as VP run both domestic and foreign policy. Basically every job is easy when someone else is doing it. And one more thing, it is easy when your goal is not easily quantified or measured like making "Amercia great again"
There are no individual political decision by most educated people:
- explained in an hour
- under tutelage of top experts
Now, I totally agree with the fact that having world class advisers helps. Only fools intend to run entire countries by themselves.
Now why do we want experienced political leaders to lead us? Basically, the voters believe that if the person has been close to the position of power and has proven not to corrupted, overwhelmed or daunted by the difficulties of leadership, one should be able to better suit in doing the actual job. The voters sometimes make mistakes in the case of Nixon but voters are only human.
Secondly, experience is like name recognition. It helps attract the right people. Or the right advisers. If you are an unknown, you may attract sycophants or other self serving people to your side. Let me give the example of a new sports team in the NFL (You can use your favourite sports league like NBA or EPL). Would you be able to attract the best players? Few established players would bother to switch to a new sports team if they are currently having a good gig. Most established stars will go over to a team that has sufficient people in their roosters. The stars also like to see some other competent team members before switching. Some mercenaries might make a switch if you pay them enough. In those cases, the mercenaries have a distressing habit to abandon their pay masters when the situation is not suitable. Point is that unknowns seldom get the best advisers.
But now, I believe that some observers will point that army generals have had coups. The point is that we are dealing with human with their fallibilities. Still the fact that most countries persist with having generals leading their armies despite the risk of coups means that the risk is acceptable. While we are on the subject of military coups, I like to point that most countries that are run by military dictators seldom prosper economically even when the generals are not enriching themselves. Logically, the wisest advisers would have been available to advise the generals within an hour on the difficulties of running a nation. The successful military leader who had been able to lead his country to great success is quite rare. Most of his peers are clearly not interested in studying his methods. (I know I maybe sexist by assuming the general to be male but I cannot recall a female general leading a successful coup in history.)
What if the topic cannot be summarised in one hour? Should the advisers run prep school for the president up to speed for all topics? (This is how the Congress works. This is how the Senate works. That is a State's issue. This is what the Constitution states.). Is a four year prep-school enough for a rookie to survive? What if the president decides that he or she is not willing to listen to the adviser or smarter than the adviser and chose not to listen? Or choose to listen to the advisers that flatter or selectively edit the facts? Or even getting the right people to work together? Or even deciding which topic to focus on? I like to know which general in the US Army believes that he or she can summarise the issue of ISIS within one hour. Because I sure don't think ISIS or the water in Flint Michigan is an hour long problem. Moreover, by the time the advisers have summarised the issue in a one hour sound bit, the opportunity to make a decision maybe long gone.
I know that the US President does get briefing from time to time but I am also sure that the President's job is more than hour long briefings with a simple yes or no or even multiple choice decision at the end. Basically all claims that the President job can be simplified sounds like the claim
that Trump intends to let Kasich as VP run both domestic and foreign policy. Basically every job is easy when someone else is doing it. And one more thing, it is easy when your goal is not easily quantified or measured like making "Amercia great again"
"You know, nothing truly prepares you for the demands of the Oval Office. Until you’ve sat at that desk, you don’t know what it’s like to manage a global crisis, or send young people to war. But Hillary’s been in the room; she’s been part of those decisions. She knows what’s at stake in the decisions our government makes for the working family, the senior citizen, the small business owner, the soldier, and the veteran. Even in the middle of crisis, she listens to people, and keeps her cool, and treats everybody with respect. And no matter how daunting the odds; no matter how much people try to knock her down, she never, ever quits." Obama, DNC 2016 speech
Comments
Post a Comment