I saw a headline referencing the war in Iran – it called it the Retard War. In general, it is a bad idea to put the dumbest member of the herd in leadership. Watching horses, I note that the leader is usually an older mare – not the flashy testosterone heavy stallion. And it gets me wondering.
We have a republic, with our leadership chosen through popular elections. That’s the operative word – popular. Popular vote. Somewhere around fifty years ago, I realized that most of the politicians I had met were easy to like. We tend to vote for people we like, and to find reasons not to vote for their opponents. We don’t vote for the most competent – we vote for the most likable.
I recall commenting that it takes a serious amount of Narcissism to seriously think of running for President. The most memorable replies were to the effect that the statement is true for Trump, but not for Obama. I stand by what I said – without a serious amount of Narcissism, you’re not going to run for President. It’s there, regardless of political party. Humility isn’t the main personality characteristic of presidential candidates, whether democrat or republican. It’s in fairly low supply for gubernatorial and senate candidates, too. Humility isn’t a significant personality component in the judges I’ve met – even at the JP level.
Our closest elective offices are the school trustees. A school trustee is unpaid, and (generally) unappreciated. So unappreciated that I would recommend voting against anyone who campaigns for the office – even if the campaigning is just talking to friends to ask for their vote. Despite that thought, I believe we need our community’s best qualified, best thinkers on those boards. When elementary students are expected to have passed algebra before going to high school, we can’t afford board members who can’t solve the quadratic with the text open in front of them. Yet I would be willing to guess that half of the state’s school trustees can’t. While half the world is below average, we can’t afford to elect those below average talents – and, in general, there is enough narcissism in politicians that they won’t recognize themselves in this description.
One of the problems shows up in the college placement exams – exams that measure two types of intelligence. Basically mathematics and verbal. I suspect that the politicians who are successful in elections tend to have higher verbal skills than math skills. If I am correct, it explains how we keep electing people who can’t pass a balanced budget.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is ran by the Mullahs and Ayatollahs. Those are religious titles. If I hadn’t dealt with our own elected politicians, I would figure that putting religious leaders into civil leadership would be a good way to get leaders who can’t do basic math. As is, I’ll end this as I started – herd animals don’t survive by putting the dumbest member of the herd the leader.
I wandered past a teach-in back in October of 1969. As I walked past, the guy who was talking explained that Ho Chi Minh wasn’t the problem – Ho didn’t want any of us in Viet Nam. Our problem was our own leaders.
A lifetime later, I’m really not sure that electing smooth talking likable people isn’t just as bad an idea as electing Islamic theologians. Maybe, instead of these nice guys we need some irascible SOB’s who can do the math – from school boards to Congress and the Presidency.
Leave a Reply