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.