| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Forum de Rantburg: Competence and treachery in politics |
| 2007-08-15 |
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 |
| #24 I like the Forum de Rantburg idea - and found the post enjoyable too. I hope you do more in the future. |
| Posted by: ryuge 2007-08-15 23:59 |
| #23 Gotta go with #2 and Tricky Dick. Lesser of 4 evils. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2007-08-15 23:30 |
| #22 DOH! Now that you say that, I remember that, TW. Sorry, lotp. Must've been the sabbatical I took for a few months from the 'burg. Carry on, nuttin' to see here. |
| Posted by: BA 2007-08-15 23:06 |
| #21 None taken, BA dear. It'll be interesting when she gets there, that's certain. But she's been reading Rantburg for about a quarter of her life, which has had a clear impact on her thought processes. P.S. For future reference, lotp is one our lovely Rantburg ladies. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-08-15 22:50 |
| #20 Would it be worse to have in leading political office (e.g., that of President) a competent traitor, or an incompetent one? Again, it depends on how 'traitor' is defined. If the office-holder engaged in unauthorized meetings with the enemy while still a member of the military to benefit the enemy(as did J. F. Kerry), then had a series of mediocre or barely-competent terms in various political offices (as has J.F. Kerry), then the example is already before us. If the term is used to define someone who did not uphold with equal vigor the standards, duties, and ideals of the office, then it becomes so much more murky. Politicians, after all, are beholden to their political beliefs, their sponsors and their constituency (though the quality of any or all of them and the priority they are given varies wildly). |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-08-15 22:42 |
| #19 Oops, forgot the /sarc tag at the end of Parag. 1 above...no offense meant, TW! |
| Posted by: BA 2007-08-15 22:37 |
| #18 Jeebus, TW, why you gotta go and teach something like logic and thought processes to TD#1? I mean how's she gonna function in some liberal college if she's not a programmed robot? TD#1, GREAT thought exercise and thanks for posting. I back lotp in post #11 in his definition of a traitor (in terms of the Constitution first and foremost). The sad part is (I think most of us feel this way here), no one determines the "competency of the office" question anymore in terms of the Constitution. Case in point...GW Bush. I think all of us here would pretty much never consider him anything close to a traitor (especially in the "Peace through superior firepower" department). However, most of us here (again in terms of the Constitution) are ALL OVER him in the "Competency in Office" issue, especially the last year or two. Think Harriet Miers, the recent Amnesty bill, the recent giving in on "no torture" at Gitmo thingy, spending (that's been the case his entire terms), etc. The public (and Republicans) always say, "Yeah, he's upped the Feds' budget by billions, but, hey, he's still better than Gore/Kerry/whomever the Donks throw up". While fundamentally true, why can we NOT expect the CEO of our nation to be competent to the CONSTITUTION ALSO (not just the Office of the President)? Listen, I'm one of his biggest fans, and I understand the pressure he's under to "wheel and deal" and "compromise" on any host of issues. But, why can't we get ANY legislation that reflects the TRUE (originalist) meanings of the Constitution anymore? And, one final quip, lotp re: #11. Your statement about "defending the Constitution" in terms of the Civil War is "fightin' words" where I come from. Many here still feel that there's a right for States to suceed (sp?) in the Constitution and many Constitutional Scholars have written in favor of it too. Not sayin' that I agree, but it's still a contentious issue in these parts. In fact, many see that as the beginning of the end of the Constitutional idea of a very small FEDERAL (not National) gov't. |
| Posted by: BA 2007-08-15 22:36 |
| #17 td#1 and TW -- I wish I lived near you two -- so I could just enjoy your company and conversation! td#1 -- I have no answer or opinion... but keep throwing thoughts out there. It's interesting exploring the minds of you and your peers, "The Milliumn Kids" that one Marine general called those that serve under him. You're in a generation that is facing, standing up to and fighting against yet another major evil that seems to pop up in our midst throughout history. Probing your thought processes is good for us "old timers." Old timers in the sense of age only, not of mind or thoughts. Stay close |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-08-15 21:29 |
| #16 Interesting question, td#1. You're a trip, tw. I love Rantburg! :-D |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-08-15 19:34 |
| #15 Silly Free Radical! I can't count high enough to reach the number of times I've been guilty of posting without proper reading, never mind proper thought, so I wouldn't dare tick you off for that. Besides, reading all the posts is bringing me to tears, so I'd rather you sat next to me with a clean hanky and said, "There, there," if you'd be so kind. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-08-15 18:57 |
| #14 Oh dear, Trailing Daughter #1, I dashed off my reply w/o reading the other comments and your reply- so I am probably guilty of dog-piling. Please accept my humble apology and feel free to have the TW unleash her Legions against me. You said in #10: I think that those of you who actually know what you're talking about are more correct in your opinions than I am, so I concede the point. A small comment: NO ONE (not even here at Rantburg™) is provably correct about an opinion. They are fungible, subject to fine print and changes-without notice, escape clauses, and (like schrodinger's schtoopid cat,) usually change states the second you measure them. OK, I will go to my room now. |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2007-08-15 18:47 |
| #13 TD1 (if it's not too soon)- excellent and thoughtful article. However, I think that there is a *small* flaw in your vector here. But as you are clearly precocious, you know that small flaws can lead to what us engineering nerds call catastrophic failure. Think of a cold O-Ring in a Space Shuttle booster. The flaw is that traitor and treason are legally defined terms. They can be 'proven' in a court of law, a courts martial, or the House and the Senate (acting as a court of law for the POTUS.) In that case, Kerry, Clinton, Nixon, et al were NEITHER traitors or treasonists (I made that word up.) They were not found guilty of any such legally defined crime. (Nixon came closest.) If a candidate for POTUS was guilty of such, IMO they should NEVER be a choice for the presidency. Incompetence OTOH, is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously we want a competent president. But how do you define that? Was Nixon competent in foreign policy? Some would say yes- China, Detente, etc. Others might say no- the move off the gold standard screwed our allies, Skybolt, The Year Of Europe, etc. So that is my long-winded explanation of my thoughts. PLEASE feel free to comment, disagree, or pelt me with rocks and garbage. But again- excellent and thoughtful. Congratulations! - Free Radical "I don't 'work through my inner demons, I harness them up and take them out for a ride" |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2007-08-15 17:54 |
| #12 Luckily, the Presidency itself has been largely bereft of treason. High treason at least. If we were talking about all federal politicians, we would have different results. Getting back to the presidency though, its pretty tough to make a treason case against any POTUS. Clinton would likely be the easiest and most likely only one due to tech that landed in Chinese hands. A treasonous case, if it's a part of official policy though, would be more than difficult to make. I think the best way for everyone to look at the question then, would be to combine facts and a little imagination - like certain fiction authors - and combine an actual Presidents that fit the competent/incompetent part with possible fictional treasonous acts. if I may suggest, I think you could get better/more realistic results if you also include a Presidents administration instead of the President alone. After all, the odds of a President committing treason directly are much less than if he used one or more of his people as a go between and a Cabinet member could certainly commit treason on their own. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-08-15 17:53 |
| #11 td, today I was present when a recently promoted full colonel re-affirmed his military oath in front of colleagues, subordinates and superiors. Considering that the President is also Commander in Chief, the oath is worth a review: "I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." The oath of office which Presidents swear is shorter, but has some interesting overlaps: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So I think the question about 'traitor to whom' is defined first and foremost with regards to the Constitution. It is the Constitution which embodies the lasting center, the inherent identity of this country. Everything else might be ephemeral - laws, policies, regulations, political parties, how many states there are, which ones have more population = more Representatives, etc. And note that the Constitution may well have, as the military oath acknowledges, domestic as well as foreign enemies against whom it must be defended. Back in 1974 I held my first professional job as a computer programmer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff command center and then for the Army's command center in the Pentagon. One of my colleagues was a senior Captain fresh back from Vietnam and bearing the scars from burns acquired in combat. The Washington Post published an article about an attack in that country with the headline "Viet Cong Take Key Bridge". Of course, 'Key Bridge' is also the name of a bridge in the DC area and Rick posted that headline in our office with the note "They're getting damned close!!" Which, besides being funny, was his way of reminding us (in the midst of the Kerry-driven Winter Soldier slander and all the attacks on Vets and slanders they faced) that one day it may come to it that he and his Army colleagues might once again, as with the Civil War, be required to defend that Constitution against enemies here as well as abroad. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-08-15 17:35 |
| #10 Which version of traitor are we talking about? The treasonous kind, or the bad policy kind? The treasonous kind. In my opinion (which should in no way be taken to define the question, as these are my own conclusions), bad policy would be more a mark of incompetency in office rather than of treason. The TW brings up an interesting point: does the official we're defining as a traitor owe loyalty to the entire country, or only to those who voted for him as representing themselves? I agree with her opinion that he owes loyalty to the entire nation; however, to which group is he a traitor? Regarding the comments on and disagreements with my parallels between the four profiles and certain presidents: I'm not very good in terms of American history, and those parallels were drawn based on the most infamous policies and acts that shaped popular opinion. I think that those of you who actually know what you're talking about are more correct in your opinions than I am, so I concede the point. Thanks for the correction and information. |
| Posted by: trailing daughter #1 2007-08-15 17:11 |
| #9 Carter could indeed be the traitor. If reports of him sidling up to the Russkers in hopes of heading off a Reagan electoral victory are correct, then he's a traitor. His actions since his presidency only give credence to those reports. In today's world politic, there is no greater friend of the dictator than Carter. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2007-08-15 17:01 |
| #8 You need to qualify the term traitor. Traitor to what? To the country in the criminal definition? And how? Kerry is not the President and never will be, IMO. Was Carter? Again, not by criminal definition. Compentency or the lack of it doesn't equate to traitorous behavior but traitorous behavior that is well hidden leads to competency in office since it is illusional. I think Carter was the most incompetent President ever (I didn't live through Millard Fillmore). Clinton probably fits the closest to treason since he was more concerned with dipping his wick than protecting the American people and their homeland. But I would rather have a competent leader and an incompetent traitor. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2007-08-15 16:33 |
| #7 #1 would be the worst which, of course, would not be Kerry (incompetent in every respect). #1 would be the exception to Lincoln's rule about fooling all of the people all of the time and would therefore be in the position to do the most damage. With #2 the country runs well and the traitorous acts fail so no there is no harm done. There is danger in #3 because some traitorous acts might succeed before the checks and balances stop him or before the voters get rid of him. I believe that #4 is what we had with Jimmuh. It was bad but after four years American democracy prevailed. The people got wise and elected Ronald Reagan. I would also disagree about Nixon. He may have been a little shady but I never heard of him doing anything traitorous unless you count the damage done by Watergate. Watergate did damage but it wasn't done intentionally to benefit any of our enemies such as the Ruskies which I would call the definition of treason. I still believe that deep down, in spite of all his flaws, the man was a patriot. He may have been a crook but I still have a soft spot in my heart for old Tricky Dick. Hey, nobody's perfect. Good logic question. Hope I passed the test. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-08-15 16:22 |
| #6 Nixon also tried to appease the Left of his time with things such as the EPA. It didn't help him; you'd think Dubya would have taken note, being the history buff that he is. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-08-15 15:43 |
| #5 I don't think 1 is possible here (yet), 2 would probably be Clinton, 3 would be Hillary ,4 is definitely Carter. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-08-15 15:42 |
| #4 Nixon was never a traitor. You have to understand his WW-II history to understand Richard. Richard managed to run a cas ino in the Solomon Islands while being in uniform. He was a capitalist first. Money was there to be made so he did it. His buddie Bebe Rebozo ran tire rationing for the South East in WW-II. No citizens in the South East were able to buy new tires under Bebe. He sold the SE's ration of tires to South Am. The rumor is that he got money to do that from Nixon's cas ino revenues. Who knows but it would explain the "donations" by bebe to Richard. Likely his own money just banked. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-08-15 15:07 |
| #3 Well, if these are the only choices, then my selection would be #4 on the basis of "Things have to get worse before they can get better". Would we have had a Ronald Reagan without a Jimmy Carter preceding him? I dunno. This is also the only reason I'm a little more sanguine than some folks about a Hildebeest presidency. I'm convinced she'll be a disaster one way or another, but maybe that's what's needed before we can have real thoroughgoing change. My preference would be that we could have that change without a major crisis, but my reading of history and human nature tells me otherwise. Sorry for wandering off-topic. |
| Posted by: charger 2007-08-15 14:57 |
| #2 Ummm... I hate school and this question is set up exactly like something I would expect to see at one and therefore had a hard time getting through it as I wanted mostly to burn my eyeballs. ;) Even with that difficulty, I wanted to give the article proper digestion so I decided to be steadfast and I overcame. What I discovered after reading the question instead of skimming it was, this is an excellent question. One that I will have to chew on for a bit before I can answer. Stoopid job! The one thing I will say, is that Nixon and Carter were not traitors. Well, maybe there's a case for Carter. Still, when the average Rantburger thinks of the word traitor, they think of it as an alternate for the word treason. The wages of treason is death. Carter deserves ritual lampooning, not death. Now, if we're applying the word to someone who's policies or actions in general aren't in the best interest of the nation, you've got Carter nailed. Which version of traitor are we talking about? The treasonous kind, or the bad policy kind? |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-08-15 14:26 |
| #1 As background, trailing daughter #1 will vote for the first time in 2008, and she's taking her responsibility as a citizen very seriously. Rambler, you have this mother's gratitude. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-08-15 13:27 |