Why do we need a PRESIDENT?

[fromderinside]

Talk about dire. How about being lead scientist responsible for deciding whether to include chevron displays for climbing and descending or for changes in altitude or direction or energy superiority management in suite of studies designed to determine recommended display indicators? Now that's critical. Don't want to make that B57 problem back during Vietnam. <chortle>

 

[steve_bank]

Part of the job of the American president is to ally fears. Male people feel good enough to believe in tomorrow.

JFK used his charisma to inspire us. Hitler used his for personal power.

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 devoped over time. He was paid by GE to travel and make speeches.

A president is essential. He or she is supposed to reelect our values to the world. Trump obviously is horrible and has done serious damage international.

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.

 

[steve_bank]

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. 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.

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. 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.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Wouldn't Hitler have to take the prize for most charisma? best at manipulating his audience? And isn't one's ability to manipulate the listening audience the most important qualifier to be chosen as "leader" or "President"?

Wouldn't another Hitler be most likely to be elected U.S. President today, if he could correctly identify which symbols or slogans are most popular with the public?

Do we really need a "President"? Why?

Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?

The President, usually, is a figurehead.

He should always be that. Why should any high policy decision be left to one person? The idea that we need a CHIEF is delusional.

The President doesn't negotiate the treaties, staffing does.

He appoints the staff, dictates the decisions, if he wants to. It's fine if he appoints the best decision-makers and lets them do it. But most often he dictates the outcome, and appoints those who agree with his bias.

The President doesn't micromanage the military, the Generals/Admirals and down the line do.

Sometimes, and other times the Commander in Chief does micromanage it. Why wouldn't a committee do it better?

What's to stop a dictator from making a mistake, if he alone makes the decision? If it's a committee of 3 or 4 or 5 which makes the decision, there are extra minds involved which could prevent a bad mistake.

But there needs to be someone at the top to be the final arbiter.

One person only? That's just a slogan. A committee at the top can do it better. Less likely to commit a bad mistake.

Otherwise, how does a National Government of 50 million, 350 million, 2 billion work fully?

It works better if a committee does it. The decision-maker has to be checked by something which can overrule him if he makes a mistake. Which is less likely if there's only one who decides it.

So the question I suppose is are you arguing for axing the Executive Branch and merging it with Congress...

No, keep the Executive Branch but have a committee do the decisions rather than only one person. Makes a Donald Trump less likely.

This doesn't necessarily mean a Constitutional amendment. Rather the President should become a symbol only. Or, he could be a member of the Committee, having one vote. There are probably ways this could evolve without a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why do we need a DEMAGOGUE-IN-CHIEF blowhard pundit "leading" the country?

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.

So, what's wrong with having a committee decide whether to drop a bomb on Moscow rather than leave it to one nutcase charismatic "President" who was better than the other demagogues at manipulating idiots to vote for him?

Well the shooting down of a commercial plane off the east coast of the Soviet Union during Nixon's presidency is the best example at all levels for why individuals given decision power are more apt to be correct than any form of group or centralized control and decision making.

I don't believe this example.

They took too long and did the wrong thing because of centralized control, indecisive by group serving several masters, . . .

Assuming you're right, the solution is to have a committee design a better system, creating a decentralized committee to make the critical decision(s), limiting the number of "masters" but still a committee instead of one decision-maker only.

Also, your description sounds like a case of a committee that was too large. A "committee" doesn't have to mean a dozen or 2 dozen committee members. It means a small group rather than only one person dictating the outcome.

. . . fear of making decisions, and . . .

A committee would have less fear, because the chance of a mistake is reduced by having more decision-makers present who are more likely to catch a mistake, i.e., each one is an additional mind who could notice a possible mistake.

. . . rigid and dated control systems.

That's not more likely with a committee making the decisions. Each member of the committee is an additional mind which can see the need to change something, make it less rigid, and update it.

There's nothing here fundamentally flawed about a committee doing it. All the flaws are just as likely with one person at the top dictating everything. More likely.

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.

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.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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 camel is a poor example of design by committee. A real world example of design by committee is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It became unsuitable for the original intent, was years late, and cost several times its budget.

So, which President are you saying should have designed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? all by himself without any "committee" getting in the way?

Or which one General?

Would you have one person only design all weapons -- every weapons system, every submarine, every jet fighter, etc.? so as to prevent mistakes which might happen by too many cooks in the kitchen? and get them all produced on time within budget?

Let's have an example of something now decided by one person, i.e., by the President, which could not be decided better by a committee of 3 or 4 or 5.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

^ ^ ^
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?

 

[fromderinside]

I don't believe this example.

Agreed. People thought Nixon was on it in 1983. He had resigned in 1974.

 Korean Air Lines Flight 007

They took too long and did the wrong thing because of centralized control, indecisive by group serving several masters, . . .

Assuming you're right, the solution is to have a committee design a better system, creating a decentralized committee to make the critical decision(s), limiting the number of "masters" but still a committee instead of one decision-maker only.

Also, your description sounds like a case of a committee that was too large. A "committee" doesn't have to mean a dozen or 2 dozen committee members. It means a small group rather than only one person dictating the outcome.

The solution is for a committee to assign a person who is qualified to develop the solution then have the sense to approve what he/she had created. All committees are 'too large'. Groups should never be more than eight persons.

Committees don't design better systems. Committee leads design better systems then get the committee to go along if there is going to be a better system. Small groups usually work at cross purposes leading to Camel designs, good for the desert but useless in urban society. Committees usually assign one person as lead. The committee signs off. So no dictation.

. . . fear of making decisions, and . . .

A committee would have less fear, because the chance of a mistake is reduced by having more decision-makers present who are more likely to catch a mistake, i.e., each one is an additional mind who could notice a possible mistake.

Obviously you were never in a soviet communist system where the people are always right and the person is always wrong. Guns are fearsome things.

. . . rigid and dated control systems.

That's not more likely with a committee making the decisions. Each member of the committee is an additional mind which can see the need to change something, make it less rigid, and update it.

There's nothing here fundamentally flawed about a committee doing it. All the flaws are just as likely with one person at the top dictating everything. More likely.

For the most part we disagree. I know some problems require many minds. Usually they are formed by those interested in the problem rather than those trying to make a profit. that is an important distinction. Interested minds working together on well defined problems subject to empirical verification are much different than hirelings or politicians. All committees subject to coercion by stakeholders or salary givers are to be avoided. If there is to be a committee it best be like minded persons interested in a particular problem that has a material solution.

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.

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.

You went through a lot of googledogock disproving your thesis. 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. One can build a whole world of reasons why one would be charmed by another but what it comes down to is being charmed by others is a human attribute for reasons to follow without thinking.

 

[fromderinside]

^ ^ ^
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.

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. What I remember is leaders like Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Napoleon, Caesar, Genghis Khan ... Never a committee unless it's something bad like CABAL which is actually five people or The Central Committee lead by Stalin, Brezhnev, Gorbachev ....

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

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

You're not.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
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.

 

[steve_bank]

proletariat appears to be one of those without any real world experience.

Without presidential leadership our congress is design by multiple committees and we see how that is. Curently no possible compromises. Democrats and republics ms have internal party divisions.

The analogy is trying to hrtd cats.

Pelosi is a good leader but she has not got enough authority to force issues.

It is all about decision making and resolving disputes regardless of system. With us humans it is not easy. The USA from the start was and is an experiment in self rule which right now is failing. Trump wants to n
be a Mussolini and make all decisions and his administration is like his businesses which failed. .Back during OWS someone who said he was connected said the leaders were squabbling over how to send a few hundred dollars in petty cash.

Our state governments tend to work well. More manageable. In Washington we have referendums which become law if there are enough votes. We have them every year.

Our federal system is a good one in principle. The problem is it requires people who are ethical and will do the right thing most of the time. Which is not happening.

 

[skepticalbip]

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 camel is a poor example of design by committee. A real world example of design by committee is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It became unsuitable for the original intent, was years late, and cost several times its budget.

So, which President are you saying should have designed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? all by himself without any "committee" getting in the way?

Or which one General?

Would you have one person only design all weapons -- every weapons system, every submarine, every jet fighter, etc.? so as to prevent mistakes which might happen by too many cooks in the kitchen? and get them all produced on time within budget?

Let's have an example of something now decided by one person, i.e., by the President, which could not be decided better by a committee of 3 or 4 or 5.

That is really sad. You really don't have a clue how the real world works.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, which President are you saying should have designed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? all by himself without any "committee" getting in the way?

Or which one General?

Would you have one person only design all weapons -- every weapons system, every submarine, every jet fighter, etc.? so as to prevent mistakes which might happen by too many cooks in the kitchen? and get them all produced on time within budget?

Let's have an example of something now decided by one person, i.e., by the President, which could not be decided better by a committee of 3 or 4 or 5.

That is really sad. You really don't have a clue how the real world works.

Or analogies. He's the one that brought up 'designed by committee,' and thought he made a good point. No one else is suggesting that we need a president to design shit.

Maybe he'd do better with a football analogy? Ever see the picture of the football game with the field goal? The one where the ref on one side of the goalpost is signaling that it's good, the other side is signaling a miss? Depends on their perspective.

If the officiating is a committee, with every referee having equal say on every play, then there will be great unrest. Each play will take longer to get everyone's views, for one thing, and it'll be a mess as each one will have the same responsibilities.
In reality, they've developed areas of responsibility. They watch specific things on each play. And there is one guy that makes the final call. It's his job to gather the inputs of the specific officials and make the one decision and the game goes on.
This makes the fans and the players a little more open to a delay on tricky calls, in the hopes that there will be a good call in the end.
But if you've never worked a committee, you may never understand how a committee-officiated game would drag on and on and on, with each call revisited after later plays... Eugh.

 

[steve_bank]

'design by committee' is a general metaphor for haphazard decision making and uncoordinated efforts in problem solving where leadership is lacking. The opposite is team play with a good coach,

Congress is a prime example of design by committee. With both Republicans and Democrats tax and health care efforts consist of small groups unconnected usual working at cross purpose. No central leadership setting a direction.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm pretty sure that congress, the representative branch, was set up to reflect points of view. It was not set up to get things done. Getting things done is the job of the president who was put in charge of the executive the branch assigned to get things done. As Plato described 3600 years ago representative government is the worst form of government for getting things done, yet it is the best form of one for reflecting the will of the people.

So government is outside the frame for showing the values of committees in getting things done. Committees are good because they include more than one mind making them superior to one mind in overall probability that a good solution will result. Single persons always have single perspective which, on average means their solutions will be spotty. So a committee of motivated persons are more likely to result in one mind that has the best solution. It is a committee of individuals. The correct individual is identified to carry out the solution. My examples are Jefferson writing the declaration of independence and madison being the father of the constitution. These were committees of like minded men who found the individual to reflect their intended purpose.

 

[steve_bank]

The founders could not have foreseen the scope and complexity of today.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Human interactions have changed quite a lot in the last 300 years. Widespread literacy and virtually instantaneous global communication are biggies. When the Bastille fell, people in other parts of Europe would read about it weeks after the fact - that is, the small minority that could even read. Were it too happen today, almost every one can follow commentary by people on both sides of the barricades live on Twitter as it unfolds.

The telegraph and general schooling can not be overestimated in how they've changed interactions.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Human interactions have changed quite a lot in the last 300 years. Widespread literacy and virtually instantaneous global communication are biggies. When the Bastille fell, people in other parts of Europe would read about it weeks after the fact - that is, the small minority that could even read. Were it too happen today, almost every one can follow commentary by people on both sides of the barricades live on Twitter as it unfolds.

The telegraph and general schooling can not be overestimated in how they've changed interactions.

The technology used in interactions has changed but the interactions themselves are still the same. Nations still confront each other with arguments over power, territory, morality, etc. which, if heated enough, lead to wars just as they always have. Just as there is and always has been various agreements for mutual benefit.

 

[Jokodo]

Human interactions have changed quite a lot in the last 300 years. Widespread literacy and virtually instantaneous global communication are biggies. When the Bastille fell, people in other parts of Europe would read about it weeks after the fact - that is, the small minority that could even read. Were it too happen today, almost every one can follow commentary by people on both sides of the barricades live on Twitter as it unfolds.

The telegraph and general schooling can not be overestimated in how they've changed interactions.

The technology used in interactions has changed but the interactions themselves are still the same. Nations still confront each other with arguments over power, territory, morality, etc. which, if heated enough, lead to wars just as they always have. Just as there is and always has been various agreements for mutual benefit.

The difference between an instantaneous interaction and one where you wait six weeks for a response is more than a difference in the technology used, it changes the nature of the interaction itself.

Never underestimate the telegraph!