by OLD1953 » Mon May 02, 2011 10:49 pm
Higgs, that's really the same question about Obama restated to the general form. And your answer is in line with a breakdown in social norms, as John has predicted.
There is a recognized social phenomena by which virtually everyone has a desire to be led by persons similar to themselves, as their own sense of self importance causes them to believe their own field of work is the most important and necessary to the continued functioning of society. Polling scientists will always result in a desire for a scientist for president, polling businessmen will result in a desire for a businessman for president, etc. And nearly everyone says military leaders as a second or third choice, because they make them feel safer/more secure. While it would be ideal to have a president who was a scientist, military leader, successful businessman, and generally experienced in other fields the president must deal with, such persons are rare or nonexistant. (We did have a President who took time out from campaigning to write a short paper that was published in a scientific journal, that's quite unusual though.)
Re the above, I found it interesting that both Jack and Higgs gave reasons for preferring businessmen that would apply more to small businessmen or to a middle manager than a CEO. Generally speaking, we organize around the general staff principle in these complex times, and the CEO simply sets policy, and depends on the staff, under his direction, to accomplish the goals the policy sets forth. The CEO job is much more in line with the job skills demanded by the presidential office, but the CEO isn't at all in tune with the common man. The first Bush was very much the CEO type of president, and he probably did that as well as anyone could from that perspective.
Martin van Buren was the only businessman with no other experience that I can recall (and I may be wrong as I'm not checking) being elected as President, and he is not considered to have been successful.
General officers who have served during time of intense war usually have all the skills needed to do the office as well as can be expected, (we haven't nominated any former general officer in decades) but anyone who is familiar with the principle and practice of general staff command structure should manage an adequate performance. Just MHO, Obama's weakness (and the weakness of many serving political figures on the national level) is simply that he'd never been in charge of that kind of staff before and didn't understand it. Senators and Members of Congress do have a staff, yes, but it's an entirely different matter.
To look at an individual, does Trump micromanage or does he actually apply the general staff principle? And that's hard to answer for me, not being a Trump fan, I've paid little attention to him personally. From the little I know, he seems to set goals more than policies, and the means of reaching the goal when you are dealling with political structures may be more important than the goal itself. (Sure, we could kill Gaddafi by nuking Tripoli, but that would NOT be a smart move.) Does he understand that, or is he totally goal oriented? And I really don't know.
Higgs, that's really the same question about Obama restated to the general form. And your answer is in line with a breakdown in social norms, as John has predicted.
There is a recognized social phenomena by which virtually everyone has a desire to be led by persons similar to themselves, as their own sense of self importance causes them to believe their own field of work is the most important and necessary to the continued functioning of society. Polling scientists will always result in a desire for a scientist for president, polling businessmen will result in a desire for a businessman for president, etc. And nearly everyone says military leaders as a second or third choice, because they make them feel safer/more secure. While it would be ideal to have a president who was a scientist, military leader, [i]successful[/i] businessman, and generally experienced in other fields the president must deal with, such persons are rare or nonexistant. (We did have a President who took time out from campaigning to write a short paper that was published in a scientific journal, that's quite unusual though.)
Re the above, I found it interesting that both Jack and Higgs gave reasons for preferring businessmen that would apply more to small businessmen or to a middle manager than a CEO. Generally speaking, we organize around the general staff principle in these complex times, and the CEO simply sets policy, and depends on the staff, under his direction, to accomplish the goals the policy sets forth. The CEO job is much more in line with the job skills demanded by the presidential office, but the CEO isn't at all in tune with the common man. The first Bush was very much the CEO type of president, and he probably did that as well as anyone could from that perspective.
Martin van Buren was the only businessman with no other experience that I can recall (and I may be wrong as I'm not checking) being elected as President, and he is not considered to have been successful.
General officers who have served during time of intense war usually have all the skills needed to do the office as well as can be expected, (we haven't nominated any former general officer in decades) but anyone who is familiar with the principle and practice of general staff command structure should manage an adequate performance. Just MHO, Obama's weakness (and the weakness of many serving political figures on the national level) is simply that he'd never been in charge of that kind of staff before and didn't understand it. Senators and Members of Congress do have a staff, yes, but it's an entirely different matter.
To look at an individual, does Trump micromanage or does he actually apply the general staff principle? And that's hard to answer for me, not being a Trump fan, I've paid little attention to him personally. From the little I know, he seems to set goals more than policies, and the means of reaching the goal when you are dealling with political structures may be more important than the goal itself. (Sure, we could kill Gaddafi by nuking Tripoli, but that would NOT be a smart move.) Does he understand that, or is he totally goal oriented? And I really don't know.