Why do we need a PRESIDENT?

[fromderinside]

... and it's hardly our fault that all the pop you love is amerian. IOW get a life.

I know I'm twenty-five percent Danish. I'm disappointed that the best they could do when they immigrated was become Mormons. What's that all about? I'm thinking its about Denmark not being a very comfortable place to live. I say that because more than a sixth of all Danes in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and first quarter of the twentieth century immigrated to the US.

Talk about stubborn. Thirty thousand immigrants still maintain Danish as primary language here in the US. that in a world where the greatest number of people speaking a language are those speaking American (er, english?).

Yeah, I've already said this, but the greatest political leader in modern history is definitely not one of the top four on the list. Rather it's probably someone like Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Disraeli, or Ghandi.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

Not "multiple committees" -- but one single executive committee making the decisions would give better leadership to the congress. The President's ultimatums to the congress do not give good leadership. It's not a Napoleon the congress needs to hand down the marching orders. They need a source which does a reasoning process to arrive at the decisions.

What good is "presidential leadership" if the president is a bad decision-maker? What good is "leadership" if it's toward a bad direction? which it's more likely to be if it's just one demagogue making the decisions and no disagreement at the highest level.

Currently no possible compromises. Democrats and republics ms have internal party divisions.

That's why we need an executive source not entrenched into either party or any one faction, which can engage in the dialogue required to overcome the differences and figure out the best answers. Instead of relying on a dictator to manipulate his party and (try to) impose an erratic agenda. (Even more so if they have multiple sclerosis.)

The analogy is trying to hrtd cats.

HRTD. Acronym, Definition. HRTD, Human Resource Training Development. HRTD, High Resolution Thermal Denaturation (biochemistry) ...

Is that another of Trump's cures for Covid 19? Just further indication that we need a committee to perform the executive functions rather than a dictator.

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

The executive committee should have the same power to force issues as the dictator President has. What is lacking is not the authority to force, but the ability to make good decisions.

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 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.

We'll have more of the same as long as we insist on having a dictator "leader" President = demagogue, instead of a committee to make the top decisions.

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.

Replacing the demagogue-President with a committee at the top to make those decisions would fix most of the above.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The current President-Dictator model is an article of faith.

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.

Why can't you give one example of a decision by the President which could not have been better decided by a committee of 3 or 4 or 5?

Why this religious devotion to the President-demagogue-dictator model? If the "real world" cannot exist without this model, it ought to be possible to give an explanation why.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Can't someone give a real example of a decision which ONLY THE PRESIDENT can make, . . .

. . . rather than a committee of a few decision-makers?

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. . . .

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.

All perspectives (or at least more than only one) are needed in order to arrive at the best decision.

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.

That's a good analogy for any decisions needing to be done within a minute or two. Which the executive decisions for a nation are not (except maybe once every 20 years or so).

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.

If the decision could be made in 1 or 2 days instead of only 1 or 2 minutes, that wouldn't be the best way to resolve it. It's better for life-and-death decisions to be treated over many days or weeks before resolving it.

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.

A better call is more likely if the decision-makers take longer than only 2 minutes (or 5 or 20). 99.9% of the critical executive decisions should take much longer, like weeks, to be addressed and resolved. Some even require years.

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.

How much public demand is there for the decisions by the President and Congress to be made in only 5 minutes? Doesn't it take a little longer than that even for the public input to be considered? Or is public input another hindrance which must be eliminated in the interest of speeding up the decision-making process?

It's interesting that no one can give any reason why we need the President instead of an executive committee to make the decisions. The analogy to football referees is obviously not serious.

Again, name a decision by the President which could not have been made more efficiently by a committee having the executive power. (As long as there is a time period of a day or 2 allowed for the decision to be arrived at.)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What good is "LEADERSHIP" if its decision-making is rotten?

'design by committee' is a general metaphor for haphazard decision making and uncoordinated efforts in problem solving where leadership is lacking.

And what's a good example of that? Especially as to decision-making at the federal executive level? Why can't anyone give a single example where a President was needed, and a committee could not do it? Why is there nothing but metaphor and no real example to offer? Name a case of a decision by the President where a committee would lack the leadership to also decide it just as well, or better.

The opposite is team play with a good coach,

Like Napoleon, e.g. He was a great coach.

You have no point if you won't give any examples of it.

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.

You're proving the point that the Presidential "leadership" model doesn't work. We have that model, which isn't working, because we rely on the PARTISAN leadership of one dictator-President-demagogue who is fanatically loyal to his party rather than to the nation.

But if instead we had an executive COMMITTEE of 3 or 4 or 5 decision-makers, not monolithically attached to the Red or Blue team, but representing more sides, and whose only job is to resolve this into a single plan beneficial to everyone, and stay at the negotiating until they reach a single plan, then we'd come up with a much better result than that of the present system of a single dictator President partisan ideologue-demagogue imposing a flawed plan onto the Congress.

No central leadership setting a direction.

They do/did have the central leadership of the President, and it produces a bad outcome, because that leadership is/was partisan and ideological and rammed a bad plan through.

The leadership is there. What is lacking is any good decision-making by that leadership. A good leader with a bad plan is probably worse than no leader at all.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

Neither of these is an example of a decision by the President which could not have been made by an executive committee of decision-makers. Neither of the above were decisions they made as President.

There's no example anyone can give of a decision by the President which could not have been made just as well or better by a Committee.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How should the Decision-Makers (to replace the President) be chosen?

Never underestimate inability to find appropriate decision makers.

Let's assume this means it would be difficult to choose the members of the executive committee which would make the decisions instead of the President.

Perhaps they don't all have to be chosen the same way. Some kind of popular election might be appropriate for 1 or 2 of them.

But also, why not tests of their knowledge? Either instead of electing them, or in addition to it, meaning the candidates would have to pass the tests to qualify as candidates.

Or perhaps the Senate and the House each would appoint someone. That would be a simple process for each chamber to do, which would provide 2 of the decision-makers.

Also the individual states could go through a process to appoint someone.

And the elected President (having become mostly a figurehead) might appoint one member. Perhaps this one member would preside over the Committee.

The President (if there still is one) would not serve on it because all these committee members must function every day, continually, with no time allowed to them for election campaigning. NO ELECTION CAMPAIGNING must be a requirement, and also some other restrictions forcing them to devote all their time to the decision-making rather than doing speaking tours and other involvements in propaganda activities. Perhaps no traveling would be allowed. Their activities when not in conference with the other committee members should be mostly in interviews and dialogues with the public, being questioned rather than giving speeches, and anything educational to inform the public of the issues being debated. Probably they should be banned from participation in any political party events.

Some of these restrictions would effectively disqualify some bad people from even seeking to serve on the Committee, because these restrictions would discourage them and they would decline the appointment. There's no reason to believe the quality of these Committee members would not be an improvement over what we now have by means of electioneering and campaign speeches by which the "leaders" over us are chosen.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

"embody the word"?

The charmed are the ones deceived by the leader/demagogue's charm. I.e., those who hear the "brilliant" speeches and are inspired to vote for the speech-maker who is good at lying to them in order to manipulate them to vote for him/her. That's the primary talent of the good speech-maker leader president demagogue. I.e., to manipulate the listeners to vote for him/her, whatever s/he has to say to accomplish this.

And there's no reason to think that those talented at giving such speeches would be good decision-makers. The talent to manipulate masses of voters is a totally different talent than that of making good decisions.

There you go. You shift from measurement outcomes of material evidence as explanation to cause and effect for what is seen as explanation.

Huh? who? what? OK, something got shifted somewhere it shouldn't have. Whatever it is, I plead guilty to it.

Let's just leave it at this: The main asset of today's elected President is his speech-making ability. (Does anyone seriously deny that?) And so the question is: What is it about good speech-making ability that qualifies a person to do better at decision-making?

So, again, name an example where we needed a slick speech-maker to do the decisions -- as one person alone -- rather than having that decision made by a Committee? How do we know that the Committee could not do better at the decision-making?

If no one can give a real example, how about a hypothetical case, where a critical decision had to be made and only one person ("leader") could do it.

By a stretch, maybe there's a hypothetical case where the decision has to be made in 5 or 10 minutes and there's no time to convene the Committee. Let's say that's the exception. Probably there's a way to allow for that situation and have one member alone make the decision. But that would be a once-in-a-lifetime case, not the norm for Presidential decisions.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

charismatic "leaders" vs. thoughtful decision-makers

Your problem is that you are talking to your talking points rather than responding to my comments. Your above answer was in response to:

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

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

You're not.

Johnson, Rickover and Dolittle were geniuses and experts in the fields which they shone as well as leaders in those fields.

My point being that often great men become leaders.

That should have led us to a discussion about how one, by committee, can assure great men are members of committees. You ducked.

How should the Committee members be chosen? Or, how do we know the ones chosen to the Committee will be "great" men?

Maybe there's no way. Who decides who is a "great" man? That's subjective.

We can use the present method of elections, but also they can be appointed by someone in power. Obviously there's no guarantee that the ones chosen will be "great," but why can't we assume they'll be just as good for making decisions as the "leaders" we elect now?

As I mentioned just previously, some requirements on these Committee members would work to actually disqualify some bad persons from membership, because there would be some demands made on them, and restrictions to prevent them from some propaganda activities. E.g., no electioneering or political campaigning and speech-making. Etc. So the calibre of these Committee members would have to be at least a little higher than what we have now from our "leaders" who spend half their time in fund-raising and speech-making before their fans.

You even missed my shot about committees being incapable of leading.

Why do we need someone for that? What we need are good decision-makers. What is the need for "leaders"? We hear that rhetoric all the time, but no one ever explains what we need the "leaders" for.

My comments about the necessity of combining emotional and operational in the job of leading was avoided studiously by you.

I'm stuck on the point about "leading" which you just take as a given. I don't agree that we need "leaders" over us. You must explain that need. After proving this need, then we can consider the need for the "emotional" and "operational" and whatever else must be combined in the job of leading. But if there is no need for "leaders," then that job doesn't matter.

Bottom line you miss the fact that humans need inspiration as well as quality decisions to move forward.

Every human gets his/her inspiration from whoever/whatever they choose. We do not need any common inspiration from one Supreme Leader over us all. We need one decision-making process in order for the decisions to be made. Explain why we need these decision-makers to make speeches at us to INSPIRE us.

Committees are incapable of providing both - at least neither of us provided an example of a committee that generated faith and progress in leadership - whilst individuals sometimes do provide both.

There are many individuals who "generate faith" -- and those who need this "generated" to them can choose whatever Source, Guru, Pundit, etc. which appeals to them. We don't all need to have the same Source to "generate faith" to us.

The "individuals" you personally would choose to generate this faith are NOT the same someone else would choose. So, you can go one way to find whatever "individual" Source to generate faith to you, and someone else can go a different way to find their "individual" Source to generate faith to them. That's not what we need decision-makers for, who have to make decisions for us all, in a single society or community.

My point is not your point. I cited competent persons not charismatic persons as examples. You immediately switched on your charisma blinders and . . .

You cited Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Napoleon, Caesar, Genghis Khan as your examples. What did they all have in common? They were CHARISMATIC speech-makers. So charisma is probably their main asset which enabled them to become the "leaders" they were.

. . . and plowed forward. Not good for individuals, lethal for committees. For instance the German hero leading Germany in early thirties was in dotage. So he listened to cautious committees which avoided decisions by finger point. Thus through inactivity lost power to aggressive Hitler. It turns out that quickness of decision usually swamps slower arrived at good decision.

So your legitimate point is that charismatic speech-makers are better at snatching power away from those who are more thoughtful. Which really makes my point. We're better off with decision-makers who take their time to think through the issues rather than make spontaneous impulsive knee-jerk actions to seize power from others, and whose function is not to snatch power away from the unsuspecting but to deal with the common issues confronting the whole community. That's the breed we need for decision-making, not those who are good at giving spontaneous speeches and shouting orders at people to scare the hell out of them, like your heroes Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Napoleon, Caesar, Genghis Khan, etc.

I'll just leave you with a thought shared by my advisor when I was in school leading our team in CCUN in conference held in San Diego in '61: "The UN is a place where good ideas go to die in committee" ... and yes, the students from UCLA as the US paired with students from NYU as the USSR to quashed our petition as students from Central Washington representing Greece claiming from The students from Eastern Michigan as Albania reparations for the of stealing Greece's beautiful children in WWII. Problem still hasn't been resolved in 2019 which should tell you something about how people hold grudges even after the problem becomes moot because there are no remaining persons needing that claim.

Nuff sed.

Yyyyyyyyeah. So all the above -- about Albanians stealing beautiful children from Eastern Michigan -- or whoever, I got lost there somewhere -- All that is the proof that we need a hero speech-maker like Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Napoleon, Caesar, Genghis Khan, etc., to run our society, rather than a Committee of 3 or 4 or 5 decision-makers engaged in a thoughtful dialogue, asking each other questions, seeking the truth.

You prefer the erratic pompous demagogue speech-maker harangue artist, because you need to be "inspired" by someone. Maybe it would be less costly in human lives if you just got your inspiration from a bottle, or puffing something, rather than from a speech-maker imposing his Five-Year-Plan onto everyone.

 

[Swammerdami]

Strong organizations need strong leaders. Whatever its faults, America muddled along for over two centuries with governments more competent than found in most countries. As two examples, the Marshall Plan under HST and the Moon Landing project under JFK would both have either been impossible under committee or majority rule or, if possible at all, would have been implemented very badly.

Many U.S. Presidents — Bush-41, Clinton and Obama just to give 3 recent examples — have been leaders with outstanding competence.

I see many proposals to revise the U.S. political system in response to the godforsaken event of November 2016. Blame it on the electoral college! Revise the boundaries between executive, legislative and judicial! Increase states' rights! Or decrease those rights! More free speech! Less!

I prefer to understand problems before proposing remedies, but the cause of American political dysfunction may be unclear. Average IQ is probably higher than ever, though it sure doesn't seem that way. Americans used to tune into Walter Cronkite for our news; now we just find the loudest crackpot on YouTube who agrees with us. But how do we combat that while preserving rights to free speech?

I'm afraid I have no palatable remedy to offer. I'll offer one suggestion that would help somewhat, but will surely be voted down:

In the U.S.A. 18 is the minimum age to vote. I propose that 65 be made the maximum age for voting! (I'm over 65 myself before you heckle me with "Get off my lawn!" .) Oldsters may be less aware of, or concerned about, trends that affect the future. Sure, some oldsters are better informed than many 35-year olds. But so are many 17-year olds! (And BTW, this rule would swing today's elections away from the red-shirt criminal party to the blue-shirt humane party.) I won't develop the case for a maximum voting age further — I'll be laughed at no matter how eloquent I am. Anyway, the maximum voting age proposal would be much less effective than other, far more objectionable, proposals I might like to make!