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.