That’s like asking a CEO of a large company who has been with the same company his entire life what he did before joining said company.
He wanted to pursue politics, got elected, and made a career out of it. By all evidence it appears he’s had a successful career so far.
@anon50325502 and @polo77j are significantly more well versed on the founders than I am, so you can go down that road with them. I’m confused on your point. Sure, we need good leaders, but that doesn’t mean somebody who has lived their life as a politician can’t be a good leader. Likewise, just having experience in any field (politics or not) doesn’t make you a good leader. Like most things, take it case by case.
What’d they call him, the great communicator? He had a knack, from what I’ve read and heard, for reaching across the aisle.
agree on this - all around.
It’s not just him, though. I see the same cult of personality the will surround Obama given the MSM narrative of the man.
I read a book a while back, the details escape me, called False Idol - it centers around Barry O, but it dives deeper in the cult of the presidency - I think you’d like it.
To me, what you’re talking about, smells of availability heuristic. You seem to only be looking at the shitty guys in politics. I don’t think they’re all shitty. I’d say most of them are mediocre morons who won a race.
There are some who are intelligent and exhibit the traits you think are lacking (I’m thinking HoR … the Senate is too small of a sample and is too skewed I’d imagine)
Ya, I too am confused. I dislike the idea of career politicians, but I also don’t like the idea that Joe Schmoo be tasked with overseeing the US nuclear program, for example, because he’s popular on Twitter.
If you want to be successful in manufacturing X you work in that industry or something similar. Why would it be any different for governing?
Okay, I get that. It’s a fine opinion to have. I’m not sure how to even begin to judge that, though. I mean, I’ making an assumption here, but I’m don’t think Paul Ryan is bangin one of his slaves on the side… Who knows with these guys, though.
To Drew’s point here @zecarlo . I’m not sure how well versed you are with the military - but to rise in the ranks one has to be a skilled politician.
I had an instructor in grad school teaching a leadership seminar who was a retired Army General (2 star I think) - also, during my enlistment, I had the privilege of working with some pretty phenomenal squad and base commanders (Colonels mostly … full bird).
These men I’m referencing were phenomenal leaders. Could inspire you to be a better person. They were also well versed/skilled politicians to be able to rise to the point they did. My point is all elected officials are politicians, not all politicians are elected officials - I think it’s worth noting the distinction for the discussion we’re having at the moment.
Also, not all good leaders are politicians, but some are.
I don’t want Joe Schmoo running things but I want people who have demonstrated, at minimum, competent leadership. Someone like Colin Powell is an example of who I mean.
Obviously politics will play a part in politics. I get that. But it seems that that is all we have going on now. These guys are spending their time (our time) politicking instead of leading.
It does. And it might be the case in some instances. The issue is how much insight we actually have into what these people are doing on our dime.
At the federal level, there’s a level of theater involved and, for obvious reason, I’d hope, the press dedicated a good portion of their attention on these federal people. Shit even state and local papers focus on Feds more so than state and local legislatures - the exact level that is more likely to impact your life directly than anything coming out of Washington.
I think the issue is perception and transparency. However, you, we, have to take responsibility to be informed, which takes time to dig into and be educated on (either autodidacticly or through traditional instruction).
Well, what I was told by my drill sgts was leadership included integrity, accountability and honor. I don’t expect Lucas McCain or Ben Cartwright to run for office but I would like to see at least a glimmer of those things in our elected officials.
I don’t mind if I disagree with a position on an issue as long as I know what that person’s position is. What we have now are poll watchers.
Yeah, I think you are spot on. But then again back then we didn’t have fat people running around with tattoo’s and piercings all over their body with a huge entitlement mentality.
So…the people pretty much get the government they deserve. Thank God I am the age that I am at. I probably won’t live to see the complete decline of the US.
For the most part, I agree with this. They’ll change their stance depending on how the wind blows.
because of my understanding of these words, I agree with the first 2 - they’re very, to me, personal virtues. Honor is too external to be a reliable virtue, plus it’s a little redundant. Almost like integrity + personal accountability/responsibility = honor
Case by case basis, i’d hope lol … I’m sure you’d care if their policy was something like stifling free speech or suspending the 4th amendment (think stop and frisk … what an afront that is to liberty)
I should explain what I meant. I might not vote for someone based on certain issues but I am OK with someone having a different opinion, as long as I know what it is. I suppose the opposite is true as well. You want the person you vote for to stand by the things you agreed with when he was running. People bring up Trump and the wall but you could add Obama and Gitmo.
I think a major difference between politicians today and in the distant past is that men like Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc., were also political theorists and philosophers. Their political writings were published. Now you don’t where someone stands or why which is why the two parties have incongruous positions in their agendas.
Maybe you’re reading different things than me - Joe Biden wrote a piece for Foreign Affairs not too long ago - politicians are frequent contributors to WSJ and NYT and the like … shit I think Massie and Amash have contributed pieces to Reason (but I might be mistaken on that … certainly Austin Peterson has - I’m sure Rand Paul has some consistent contributions somewhere). I forget the name of the guy, but he recently wrote a book which was reviewed in National Review (fuck I want to remember who wrote it … I wanted to read it)
I’m not saying their writings are anywhere near what Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, George Mason, John Jay, etc. but then again, those men were trying to create something new, never tired before, ever and had to persuade a population that their ways were superior to Monarchism.
Different topics and issue to write about - the politicians of today aren’t trying to spur a revolution to overthrow the biggest government on the planet. Perspective.
I got the gist of what you meant, I was just making a joke
Democrats that the far left don’t think are left enough and Republicans that the far right don’t think are far enough right. Keep the lunatic fringes of both sides where they belong.
Reasonable … but kind of a double edged sword for me. The middle are more moderate and more likely to work “across the aisle, getting things done” - but are more laws the answer?
Why does working across the aisle have to involve more laws? Seems like if you’re genuinely working with the other side you don’t have to stick all the extra fluff that crushes the system in just to drum up votes.
