As our department continues to struggle to fill a few mid-level positions (for the most part due to a lack of qualified applicants), I have been thinking about “experience” as it relates to choosing a President. Just how much and what kind of experience prepares one for this role? Does a particular type of experience or lack thereof disqualify one for the position? Unfortunately, I’m unable to draw a firm conclusion on this one. Here are a few considerations, though:

1 ) Vision - The President must have vision. Organizational success of any time is severely constrained absent a consistently promulgated vision.

2) Execution - The President is in charge of the biggest, most complex and confusing organization in the world. An organization with divisions in practically every continent. And that’s just his role as Commander-In-Chief. In addition, he makes appointments to tons of far-reaching posts (both the Executive Dept. and judges). Getting the right people in these posts and, in the case of Executive Dept. posts, holding the responsible parties accountable, is not a small task.

The first of my points does not require a certain type of experience, simply ideas. The second one, which I think whole “experience” argument is pointing towards, would surely be be aided by executive-type experience. Also, I think that relevant non-executive experience (such as legislative roles) is also important and should not be downplayed.

The linked article mentions the lack of executive-type experience in the Democratic Party. It also mentions the lack of success of senators in winning past elections when running against former governors. It fails to mention that in multiple cases the losing senator was running against an incumbent President. It also notes that all recent Presidents have stumbled significantly during their tenures, a very valid point that recognizes that no amount of experience will guarantee a flawless presidency.

As far as the current leading candidates go, I cannot say that I would disqualify any solely based on their lack of experience. However, if I had to choose one for such a disqualification, it would be Edwards (who seemed to be running for President from his first day as a Senator as opposed to actually being a Senator.) Of course, many Republicans are bringing out the “experience” factor and will likely continue to do so, depending on who their candidate is.

As I said, I was unable to draw firm conclusions on this one. Thoughts?

Link

Removed by user

I’ve never been a big fan of Ayn Rand . The linked article is a good discussion of her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged. It talks about how Rand incorrectly portrays true nature of capitalists (even though she is a strong believer in the capitalist way) . I know there are a few on this site of the entrepreneurial ilk….so, what’s your take?

Atlas Shrugged

Leave it to a twice-divorced German politician to steal an idea that I have jokingly promoted to my wife for many years - the renewable marriage. Like the cell-phone contract with terrible coverage, you just have to wait out your term and “presto”, you’re free. Well, except for the kids and the shared property. Of course, those things are merely an afterthought.

This article details the fact that it will require a draft to successfully execute an ambitious military-based foreign policy. Sounds obvious, but it’s rarely pointed out. Here’s an excerpt:

Still, if political leaders want to send the troops to solve a vast range of the world’s problems—if they want a military that’s far-flung, deployed on many fronts, and fighting in multiple theaters—then, at some point, numbers do matter. Or, rather, numbers and missions matter. If we want to maintain all these military missions, then the numbers have to go up. If we don’t want to do everything necessary to push the numbers up, then the missions have to be cut back.

So, should we continue to send troops overseas to fight wars, keep peace, settle conflicts, impose order, and build nations? How do we get the extra troops—pay them a lot more (and where do we get that money?), mobilize all the reserves, reactivate the draft?

Or should we handle international affairs in a different way, relying much more on military alliances and diplomacy—not because (or not just because) that’s often regarded as preferable to unilateral military force, but simply because there is no practical alternative?

I’ll take the latter.

Draft

Although I have forsaken cable tv (a life-changing event) and am by no means a big CNN fan, I’ll have to say that I’d be very interested to see the CNN documentary series “God’s Warriors” that is airing this week. The series is composed of three two-hour shows, as follows:

Tuesday, 9 PM: God’s Jewish Warriors
Wednesday, 9 PM: God’s Muslim Warriors
Thursday, 9 PM: God’s Christian Warriors

The series focuses on each religion’s role as a cultural and political force and discusses the dissatisfaction of each with the pervading secular/materialistic nature of modern society. The series was compiled by CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour.

God’s Warriors

This article is from LewRockwell.com, a well-known libertarian site. It’s basically a pitch for Ron Paul, the long-shot Republican presidential candidate. Mr. Paul aims to end the Iraq war AND repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, so he has my ear. He may even have my time and $ in the coming months when the campaign ramps up.

The first-ever head of China’s food and drug oversight agency, Zheng Xiaoyu, was executed earlier this month after having taken numerous bribes from pharmaceutical companies. Ironically, the agency was formed in the late 1990’s after Zheng had successfully lobbied for its creation to counter the distribution of unsafe drugs.

Obviously, this guy screwed up. However, it’s well-known that such corruption is widespread in the Chinese government. Why did such a prominent official receive the harshest of penalties? Could this be a warning to other officials of an impending crackdown? Or, was this a textbook example of a Communist government responding the only way it knows how (by killing in order to save face and hoping everyone doesn’t focus on the larger problem)? Or, was this done merely as an economic ploy in light of all of the recent news regarding unsafe Chinese products? We can all speculate, but one thing is certain: government “protection” is far from absolute and is often nothing more than a false sense of security.

Wilmington Star

Two prominent Republican senators, John Warner and Dick Lugar, have crafted a bill that would require the White House to draw up plans for a U.S. redeployment OUT of front line combat and INTO border security and counterterrorism roles. The bill would require the White House to present these plans to Congress in mid-October.

Is this the beginning of the end for our combat involvement in Iraq? Obviously, the bill doesn’t contain any real teeth to it (no cut-off of funding, no firm withdrawal date, etc.). But, it does show a willingness to break with the White House that heretofore had been absent amongst prominent Republicans. Warner and Lugar are smart guys who see that the political progress we had hoped would accompany our troop surge in Iraq just isn’t happening. I think Warner and Lugar are hoping to serve as a “third wheel” that plays a significant role in the coming months as a mediator between the Democratic congress and the White House in regards to a substantive shift in our Iraq policy. One other consideration is that Warner is up for re-election in ’08 and doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of the political fallout over Iraq that will probably continue from ’06.

This article details a few of the better-known political prediction markets. These markets (at least some of them) allow participants to buy real($$$) contracts based on certain election outcomes. One of the sites, Intrade, also offers the opportunity to wager on a variety of subjects (weather, current events, etc). I’m not advocating for or assessing the legality of placing wagers (although I will say that this SHOULD be 100% legal), just pointing out that these sites will be a valuable source of information as the 2008 election approaches. By the way, the markets currently expect a match-up between Clinton and Giuliani. Yikes!