Instead of relying on charisma, why not have Presidents based on intelligence and knowledge? Someone who has a masters or professional degrees, has written papers and books, and is just a really knowledgeable guy? Rather than, um, someone who's not.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-16 11:48
Because smart people are smart enough to realize that you wouldn't actually want to be president.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-16 20:00
Why can't we use the power of politics for GOOD instead of EVIL?
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-16 20:22
Why can't we use the power of politics for GOOD instead of EVIL?
Name:
York2005-04-17 1:12
Because politics arises from the collection of individual interests, and a sometimes rational, sometimes irrational assessment of how to deal with those interests. Population creates politics, and selfishness is inevitable. The best that we can do is to control it.
Experience is needed in addition to intelligence. Even though Bush is a dummy, the yearning for a 'philosopher-king' president (which I feel VERY strongly, don't get me wrong) isn't a guarantee of someone who can do the job the way it has to be done. You need either experience in one (usually both) of the houses of Congress or experience at another executive position-State Governor, in order to be taken seriously by the public, and not without reason. there is also a degree of literal truth in what >>2 's joke. Being involved in government from a certain point, in order to interact with the Executive branch and to get a feel for diplomacy and policy, is generally necessary to create the impression of electability. Of course this falls apart when we look at some of the basically dumb shit that people in government say and do. It's depressing, but that's why things are the way they are. I'm skeptical that a college professor would make a good chief executive, and this doesn't even relate to the irrelevant fluff of 'perceived strength'-they simply haven't been in government first hand for long enough to know certain protocol. But, since Bush fucks up protocol and gets away with it, maybe it's not inconceivable that someone cool could come in and fuck shit up for the better. They would have to present a forcefully ethical, detailed plan for how to better America, of course. That's part of why it kind of sucks that Howard Dean imploded his own campaign-he would have lost to Bush by a much wider margin than Kerry did if nominated, but the moral force in his speeches contains a germ for what Democrats need to do-make NEW democrats, and not worry about swaying republicans by gravitating toward them.
As for irrelevant charisma and looks alone, I have to say that barring presidential candidates from television during campaigning has a certain appeal for me.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-17 1:19
The brightest people (your professors, researchers, writers, etc) can't be bothered. They became like they are through the pursuit of their passion. Why would they go into politics?
"I just finished a series of studies in molecular biology that have determined the chemical folding of specific selenoprotein enzymes may be the key to curing certain types of hepatocellular carcinomas. What should I do now? Oh, I know! Become a politician so my opponents can smear me when they find out I've been fucking a couple of my post-doc lab assistants..."
Which brings us to politicians. Most of them are not stupid - which is why they pander to the masses like they do. If you want better leadership you'll need a more intelligent populace (who give a damn).
Presumably the most qualified individuals from the academy would be professors of Political Science, not hard scientists. These people would have an appraisal of the domestic and international situations, and would have seriously studied governance and legislation up to the present day more closely than even many politicans have done-someone on the outside has the luxury of analysis, not being forced to action unless and until they find themselves in the public office that they they have analyzed so closely, to be informed by history and a thesis for America's best course.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-17 16:41
Good point. Of course, it'd probably be a step down for them too. Academics are academics and not politicians.
Mind you, having some hard scientists in government wouldn't be a bad thing either. You can't expect a judge to know everything, hence the need for expert witnesses. Likewise with the legislative and executive branches.
Because a depressingly large portion of the population wants a President who they can percieve as being a "regular guy". Unfortunately, a "regular guy" isn't likely to be possessed of staggering intellect. On the contrary, being smart is detrimental to getting voters to think of you as a "regular guy".
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-21 18:59
A smart, can-do guy is a danger to the forces that really control the country
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-23 1:15
>>That's part of why it kind of sucks that Howard Dean imploded his own campaign
More like it kind of sucks that the media convinced everyone that Howard Dean imploded his own campaign.
>>12
The yell was barely perceptable above the roaring crowd. The directional mike he was using didn't register it. The few thousand times the media played the clip without explaining this, while asking pundits to discuss if Dean was like Hitler, among other things, probably didn't help.
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-27 14:23
Jimmy Carter had a PhD, and an IQ over 170. He was one of the biggest hypocrits we've ever had for a president, and accomplished little in his first two years, in his last two, he was viciously anti-communist; and I suspect very few of you would appreciate that.
What's the problem with being against those who want people not to have private properties and life? What's the problem with getting your work's worth and not being able to slack off through your life? What's the problem with hating a political system whose death toll in camps, torture, death penalty, and political persecution, only rivals with its death toll for dying of hunger because eventually everything gets to suck so much people can't even afford to eat? What's the problem with being against a completely flawed failure of a system that sucked everywhere and every time it was used, and has today's worst quality of life? Communism blows, get used to it; I know it's easier to lift your left fist and yell "Rebellion!", "Power to the masses!", "Give me free LSD!", etc., but you gotta grow up someday you know.
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-27 19:50
>> 15
Preaching to quire, you misunderstood what I meant.
I meant that "The Internets" probably doesn't appreciate being told that the smartest president the US ever had went pretty conservative.
it's not that he did it; it's that he lied about it. Getting awesome head from fat chicks also becomes my business when it's on my dime.
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-31 5:35
I think it's quite pitiful that they had to resort to what does he hit to damage his image, because they couldn't find real stuff that went really wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-31 21:51
>>23
Instead of doing anything of significance the government spent its time on something as idiotic as whether the president got his jollies. Wait... how does the president fucking some intern affect my life or how the country runs?
Frankly, I don't give a shit if some idiot in office lies over something so trivial. It's completely irrelevant to my life. How can you possibly justify the whole brouhaha without sounding like some absolute moralistic idiot?
And you're complaining about your money being wasted? That whole political shitshow was a colossal waste of money, not the original romp in office. And since when are presidents not allowed to have sex?
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-31 23:36
I am The Republican! Arrr! I will devour you!
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-01 3:23
Republicans are faggots and Democrats are pansies. Both of them suck.
And it was on your dime because the Republicans were so desperate to nail Clinton with ANYTHING, no matter how trivial and stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-08 16:20
republicans are all repressed homosexuals. that's why getting a blow job was such a major shocker to them. even though most of the country could have cared fucking less. lieing to congress and the US to start a war of aggression is okay, however.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-09 4:33
since when are presidents not allowed to have sex?
Since America is so full of puritans it stinks sometimes. That's why war is better than having it sucked, and in TV, violence is ok but sex is zOMG I'm suing the channel.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-12 0:33
i think martin luther king and some other presidents including kennedy were womanizers too.
and i agree with what everyone said that it was a obivous waste of money and it was nothing more the a scheme to make clinton seem bad after having a good term. the republicans were obivously desperate.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-13 13:06
BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING NEW WORLD ORDER
Name:
Jim Crowbar2005-06-20 7:42
No, you all fail. The question is: Why isn't Schwarzenegger elected?