View Poll Results: Who is the most dynamic and inspiring political leader in modern history?

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Donald Trump

    1 8.33%
  • Barrack Obama

    3 25.00%
  • Ronald Reagan

    0 0%
  • Adolph Hitler

    3 25.00%
  • Other (give name in your post)

    5 41.67%
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61

Thread: Why do we need a PRESIDENT?

  1. Top | #41
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,242
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,455
    Rep Power
    54
    Never underestimate inability to find appropriate decision makers.

  2. Top | #42
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,566
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Part of the job of the American president is to ally fears. Make people feel good enough to believe in tomorrow.
    Maybe, but then we don't need him to make decisions. Let him give his speeches and make us feel good. While a committee makes the decisions.


    JFK used his charisma to inspire us.
    That's OK. But he blew the Bay of Pigs invasion. That should have been left to a committee. Let the President give his inspiring speeches, while a committee makes the decisions.


    Hitler used his for personal power.
    You're making my point. Had Hitler only given speeches while a committee made the decisions, the outcome would probably have been much better.


    Gorbachev credited Ronald Reagan's personality and how he came across with Russia agreeing to the detente. They believed Reagan could be trusted. His American nickname was 'the great communicator'. It was a skill he developed over time. He was paid by GE to travel and make speeches.

    A president is essential.
    Maybe just to give speeches and radiate good vibes, as you're proving with your examples. But not to make the decisions. A committee would do better.


    He or she is supposed to reelect our values to the world. Trump obviously is horrible and has done serious damage international.
    A committee would have done better.


    Trump's lack of leadership skill is reflected in the lack of action in congress on key issues. He is unable to form a consensus. He does not know how.
    A committee would form the needed consensus.

  3. Top | #43
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,566
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

    The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.
    The short answer is it all depends on the people and situations.

    Trump represents the kind of business leader not uncommon up through the late 70s. Arbitrary and autocratic. Makes decisions and others clean it up. Does not take inputs and is surrounded with sycophants. .Henry Ford a prime example.

    The technology business cycle became too fast for that kind of management.

    When I rowed at Intel project teams generally worked by consensus by design. It worked because the engineers were all motivated and general of like mind. Disputes were generally resolved without management getting involved.

    On the other had I worked as a contractor at a technology company. Multiple meetings with much debate and apparent consensus, yet after the meetings no one world take responsibility for actual doing something. There was no leader.
    Let the committee make the decision what's to be done. Then appoint the one to do it. Probably one of the committee members, appointed specifically to do what was decided. That's a better system than having one top dog demagogue "president" make the decisions.


    People went off and did what they felt like often at cross purpose. No one would take risk and responsibility for enacting a decision. Drove me crazy.
    That wouldn't happen if the committee decides exactly what is to be done and appoints one person to do it. Or appoints one person to do this thing and another to do that. Tell each appointee what s/he is to do. Each appointee is responsible to enact what was assigned to him/her.


    In an interview the founder of Sun said they they put prole in leadership situations and select the ones who can do it. There was no apparent criteria.

    Leadership IMO is a learned skill involving failure. Trump's problem is he has never stood up to his failures.

    The tech world in the 80s moved from a top down to a bottom up structure. The saying became do not bring me problems bring me solutions.
    The committee should decide the solutions.


    Solve problems at the lowest level. Trump represents the opposite. 'I' say what it is and your job is to do it.

    A good leader has to be able to delegate and trust.
    The committee would do that better than one demagogue president like the system we have now.

  4. Top | #44
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,566
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    First elected presidents aren't usually charismatic characters, entertainment stars maybe, but charismatic, naw. The top attribute of a president is perception by people she can make decisions in the national interest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    And more often a FALSE perception.

    That's part of what "charismatic" means. It's someone who is good at deceiving people, giving them a false perception, making them believe that s/he can make good decisions. Instilling that false impression in people is a big part of what "charismatic" means.

    A "president" gets elected by giving good speeches which persuade listeners that s/he has all the answers and is appointed by God to lead our Country to the Promised Land.

    It doesn't necessarily mean the charisma of a Martin Luther King or Billy Graham, etc. That kind of charisma has a different function than that of a political candidate charisma. The President/political candidate transmits vibes of being fully in control and strong and powerful and omnipotent. This is a dangerous kind of charisma.

    It's the Donald Trump -- Barrack Obama -- Ronald Reagan MESSIAH/HERO kind of charisma to lead us to the Promised Land. A committee is less dramatic, less entertaining, less thrilling. But it would make better decisions, and would not be able to perpetrate the deception of the charismatic speech-maker demagogues we are getting and will get more of.
    Charismatic is "exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others". There is nothing to do with deceiving since it is the charmed who embody the word.
    "embody the word"?

    The charmed are the ones deceived by the leader/demagogue's charm. I.e., those who hear the "brilliant" speeches and are inspired to vote for the speech-maker who is good at lying to them in order to manipulate them to vote for him/her. That's the primary talent of the good speech-maker leader president demagogue. I.e., to manipulate the listeners to vote for him/her, whatever s/he has to say to accomplish this.

    And there's no reason to think that those talented at giving such speeches would be good decision-makers. The talent to manipulate masses of voters is a totally different talent than that of making good decisions.

  5. Top | #45
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,242
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,455
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post



    Charismatic is "exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others". There is nothing to do with deceiving since it is the charmed who embody the word.
    "embody the word"?

    The charmed are the ones deceived by the leader/demagogue's charm. I.e., those who hear the "brilliant" speeches and are inspired to vote for the speech-maker who is good at lying to them in order to manipulate them to vote for him/her. That's the primary talent of the good speech-maker leader president demagogue. I.e., to manipulate the listeners to vote for him/her, whatever s/he has to say to accomplish this.

    And there's no reason to think that those talented at giving such speeches would be good decision-makers. The talent to manipulate masses of voters is a totally different talent than that of making good decisions.
    There you go. You shift from measurement outcomes of material evidence as explanation to cause and effect for what is seen as explanation.

  6. Top | #46
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,955
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    The founders could not have foreseen the scope and complexity of today.
    I would have to disagree. Human nature and human interactions have not changed since the days of ancient Greece. Differences in technology does not change that. The only change is the number of people in the groups interacting. Where there was once tens or hundreds of thousands in the groups, now there are tens or hundreds of millions in those groups.
    Then I would say we have reached the human nature limit of coping with complexity at the federal level. Congress has failed. Congress is too large and the problems too complex for congress to be effective. Beyond human capacity to compromise coupled with the vernal lack of experience solving complex problems. Look at the new progressives, totally inexperienced. Compromise is a learned skill.

    The level of foreign and domestic issues occurring simultaneously is beyond the capacity of a democratic process. We all have a limit to capacity to cope.

    Jefferson was a pastoralist. He envisioned a nation of gene man farmers.

    The speed and complexity of issues is far beyond anything imaginable 200 years ago.

    Smaller countries without foreign entanglements like Denmark are functional. China's rabid development was possible only with an authoritarian system. It would be ungovernable by a western style system. They get things done and got could at developing and executing a series of 5 year plans. While they are consuming a lot of coal they are also push solar and wind at the national level. Not possible in our system.

  7. Top | #47
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,566
    Rep Power
    22

    Why do we need a DEMAGOGUE-IN-CHIEF blowhard pundit to "inspire" us? or decide what the "facts" are?

    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    ^ ^ ^
    Yes. The really, really tough decisions are those needed to resolve some really dire and threatening situation within the constraints of current laws or regulations when it would be easily resolved by ignoring approved procedures or the law. Lower echelons can decide how to resolve problems by following procedures. Going beyond normal approved procedures requires higher authority.
    Why can't the higher authority be a committee rather than one demagogue speech-maker pundit whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for him?
    Short answer people are more comfortable with identifiable characters.
    OK, something like that. But the point is: the reason demagogue speech-maker pundits end up having power is not that they're good at making decisions. They are no better at decision-making than the average commoner. Probably even worse than most ordinary persons without charisma. But there are psychological factors which give the demagogue speech-makers a high profile and drive them upward into positions of power where they end up making the important decisions. This makes people more "comfortable" but not better off in terms of getting better performance from the characters put into power.

    And the President is the most obvious example of this, of someone who has ability to manipulate people with speeches and thus to seize power and set much of the public policy, even though ordinary people would do just as well. We could just as easily choose someone at random, through drawing lots, and get an equally good or better decision-maker to serve in the highest office.

    Or the executive functions would be better performed by a committee than by one person alone whose only superiority is his ability to make speeches and convince voters with his personality, rather than any merit or better talent to make good decisions for society.


    I'm sure we all remember Ted Sorensen President Kennedy's speechwriter right? "Ask not ...."

    So what grade did you skip to miss the great man theory? I don't think committees inspire peoples.
    If you need inspiration from someone, why not just pick your own personal favorite inspirational guru? Why does a vast population need to all choose one guru only to inspire the entire population with one single mystical experience?

    Why not instead have one system with good decision-makers as needed to serve the whole population, while at the same time individuals in the population can each choose their own separate gurus to give them inspiration?

    Plus, not everyone necessarily needs an entity to "inspire" him/her.


    What I remember is leaders like Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Napoleon, Caesar, Genghis Khan ... Never a committee unless . . .
    That's the point. If instead those decisions had been made by committees rather than by "leaders"/dictators, the results would have been better. In each case a committee would have made better decisions.

    . . . unless it's something bad like CABAL which is actually five people or The Central Committee led by Stalin, Brezhnev, Gorbachev ....
    Yes, the selection of who serves on the committee is important. It can't be a "Central Committee led by" some dictator who chose the other members of the committee. The committee members have to be separate persons independent of each other, representing separate interests, not chosen by one Party in Power. Maybe they'd each be equal, and any mistakes by one committee member would be corrected by other members.


    As for products how about the SR 71 and Kelly Johnson, Nuclear submarine force and Admiral Rickover, Forty minutes over Tokyo and Dolittle ....

    It's getting to be like you're entitled to your own facts.

    You're not.
    That's why we need a committee to make the decisions instead of one "Leader" dictator who makes up his own "facts" and can't be corrected because he has absolute power to impose his "truth" onto everyone else.

  8. Top | #48
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,566
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    ^ ^ ^
    Yes. The really, really tough decisions are those needed to resolve some really dire and threatening situation within the constraints of current laws or regulations when it would be easily resolved by ignoring approved procedures or the law. Lower echelons can decide how to resolve problems by following procedures. Going beyond normal approved procedures requires higher authority.
    Why can't the higher authority be a committee rather than one demagogue speech-maker pundit whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for him?
    A committee of 535 (our House and Senate) demagogue speech maker pundits whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for them take forever to make a decision even when a delay would be disastrous.
    "committee" does not mean hundreds, or dozens.

    3, 4, 5, 6, 7 members of the committee.

    The "committee" would be something like a jury, for a trial to determine guilt or innocence.

    But a small jury of 6 would be a closer ideal than 12.

    For some crucial emergency decisions it might be necessary for the number to be only 3. Executive power by "committee" is something which would require experimentation to determine what is the appropriate number of members.


    How could Executive Power by "committee" ever evolve from our present system?

    There's no way this could come about by the Constitutional Amendment process.

    What would need to happen is that a presidential candidate would offer to submit to a "committee" system in which he would not choose the other committee members.

    And eventually there would be a process for choosing the committee members, with perhaps the elected president being one of them. Probably the "committee" system would evolve slowly over many years.

  9. Top | #49
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,242
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,455
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post

    Short answer people are more comfortable with identifiable characters.
    ....

    That's why we need a committee to make the decisions instead of one "Leader" dictator who makes up his own "facts" and can't be corrected because he has absolute power to impose his "truth" onto everyone else.
    Your problem is that you are talking to your talking points rather than responding to my comments. Your above answer was in response to:

    As for products how about the SR 71 and Kelly Johnson, Nuclear submarine force and Admiral Rickover, Forty minutes over Tokyo and Dolittle ....

    It's getting to be like you're entitled to your own facts.

    You're not.
    Johnson, Rickover and Dolittle were geniuses and experts in the fields which they shone as well as leaders in those fields.

    My point being that often great men become leaders.

    That should have lead us to a discussion about how one, by committee, can assure great men are members of committees. You ducked. You even missed my shot about committees being incapable of leading. My comments about the necessity of combining emotional and operational in the job of leading was avoided studiously by you.

    Bottom line you miss the fact that humans need inspiration as well as quality decisions to move forward. Committees are incapable of providing both - at least neither of us provided an example of a committee that generated faith and progress in leadership - whilst individuals sometimes do provide both.

    My point is not your point. I cited competent persons not charismatic persons as examples. You immediately switched on your charisma blinders and plowed forward. Not good for individuals, lethal for committees. For instance the German hero leading Germany in early thirties was in dotage. So he listened to cautious committees which avoided decisions by finger point. Thus through inactivity lost power to aggressive Hitler. It turns out that quickness of decision usually swamps slower arrived at good decision.

    I'll just leave you with a thought shared by my advisor when I was in school leading our team in CCUN in conference held in San Diego in '61: "The UN is a place where good ideas go to die in committee" ... and yes, the students from UCLA as the US paired with students from NYU as the USSR to quashed our petition as students from Central Washington representing Greece claiming from The students from Eastern Michigan as Albania reparations for the of stealing Greece's beautiful children in WWII. Problem still hasn't been resolved in 2019 which should tell you something about how people hold grudges even after the problem becomes moot because there are no remaining persons needing that claim.

    Nuff sed.
    Last edited by fromderinside; 10-11-2019 at 07:42 PM.

  10. Top | #50
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,242
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,455
    Rep Power
    54
    oops
    Last edited by fromderinside; 10-11-2019 at 07:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •