|
Forum de Rantburg: Competence and treachery in politics
I post the question and scenarios below in regard to a certain train of thought into which I was inescapably, and without conclusion, drawn after the following seconds-long discussion with Rambler during the recent Rantapalooza:Rambler: So. John Kerry. So the question that I pose to the members of Rantburg, which I hope you are all far better equipped than I to answer: Would it be worse to have in leading political office (e.g., that of President) a competent traitor, or an incompetent one? The wording of the question that presented itself to me is actually fairly ambiguous. It could mean either that a competent traitor (to take one of the options for the sake of example) is both competent in office and is a traitor, or that he is competent at being a traitor. In the first case, the constant is treachery; I would have to assume that both the incompetent and competent candidates are equal in such, and the only variation between the two is their level of competence. In the second case, the constant is their competence in terms of office; the only variation is in their competence as traitors. Given these interpretations, I have set up the problem as a series of combinations of two of the four vital qualifiers, with each of those combinations presenting individual considerations as well as specific scenarios that could appear within those greater situations. 1 (competent within office; competent traitor): This situation provides for at least two possible scenarios. Assume that the officer competently manages his duties on the one side, maintaining the appearance of fulfilling the desires of his voters, and on the other side undermines the system he rules until he is either in complete power or has completely destroyed the country. The first case appears in Animal Farm and the philosophies of Machiavelli; the second, in the fantasies of the powerless flag-burners and in the practices of Saddam Hussein. 2 (competent within office; incompetent traitor): Richard Nixon? This scenario seems, to me, the best (being the least harmful) of bad choices. The country would continue to run effectively, as desired by the officer's constituency, and any treachery would either be uncovered or merely ineffective. 3 (incompetent within office; competent traitor): Jimmy Carter? Or is he #4? I admit that I'm stuck in terms of trying to imagine this scenario and its results, although possibly it would be as destructive as scenario #1sub2. 4 (incompetent within office; incompetent traitor): More probably Jimmy Carter. The effect on the country of this sort of leadership, within the office, would be the same as with any other incompetent leader. In terms of treachery, it would likely be, as in scenario #2, either uncovered or ineffective. The first end result would leave the officer universally despised and ostracized and probably facing I'm curious about everyone's opinions on this topic, and any discussion that may stem from it. I'd love to get some help on these ideas, and to see what everyone has to say. Posted by: trailing daughter #1 2007-08-15 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=196261 |