Reply to Bob Wallace

Two Kinds Who Should Never Rule

One of the hardest, and most important questions in the world, is: who should rule? Ideally we should have some type of anarcho-capitalism, but until that happy day comes (if ever) we're stuck with having some sort of rulers.

Good establishment of the ground rules. Can't say I disagree with him, though the "anarcho-" part isn't necessary. Laissez-faire capitalism would be just fine.

The only thing I know beyond all doubt is that there are two types of people who should never be allowed political power: the typical back-slapping, glad-handing politician, and business people. By business people I mean big business. Corporations that thrive under big government.

It doesn't necessarily follow that business people who do well under government-warped market conditions are bad people or they are unsuited for political office, but I understand his point.

At the same time as my realizing what politicians are, I was also working for MBAs from Harvard and the University of Michigan. I was surprised at how limited they were in intelligence, knowledge and experience. They were just fine in their narrow little worlds, but just barely. And the "just barely" was because competition was keeping them on their toes. I used to imagine what these guys would be like in the federal government, with no competition, and the conclusion I came to was that they could often be worse than the glad-handers and knee-slappers.

Seems kinda anecdotal to base such an important opinion on such anectodal evidence. My father recieved his Master of Business Administration and so have thousands of other capable and intelligent individuals and they are more than qualified to perform political work. It would be more fair to deride the various kinds of pathological personalities rather than condemning a whole sector of the college-educated workforce for the troubles he describes. Mr. Wallace probably means it isn't a good idea to assume a political candidate is worthy for office just because he has a MBA, but the reverse is true...it isn't a good idea to assume a political candidate is worthy for office just because he doesn't have a MBA. Not a real solid point.

Now I'm seeing the same kind of men in Dubya's administration. People may think that men like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld know what they're doing, but they don't. Both are businessmen from the same mold as McNamara – humorless, totally serious men without imagination or wisdom. Both are convinced they know what they are doing, to the point where they believe they should completely ignore the public, or anyone who disagrees with them, but in reality they are the blind leading the blind. They think that their experience in running corporations somehow translates into running the government. It doesn't.

Mr. Wallace previously named Robert McNamara as a "perfect example" of the kind of Evil Business Man he's talking about. I don't know what kind of impression Mr. Wallace gets from Rumsfeld, but I consider him to be one of the most natural and easy-going members of Bush's crew. I don't know how Mr. Wallace knows the extent of Rumsfeld's and Cheney's personalities, but I don't consider them imaginationless. Rumsfeld's certainly not unwise, as some of his quotes demonstrate (and I know actions are louder than words). Humorless, he also is not. Now Cheney...

Either way, these aren't very good criticisms and they'd only be marginally better if they could be objectively proven.

It also isn't very valid to argue that someone is bad for a job because they are convinced they know what they are doing. I'm convinced I know what I'm doing when I drive to work. Should someone else, who isn't as convinced as I am, drive me to work?

He is right about the last part, but I dealt with that above.

Sooner or later, with the administration's attempts to conquer a fair chunk of the world, things are going to get away from them. These men understand hierarchy and giving orders. They understand the board room. They don't understand chaos and the world. And when things do get away from them, they won't know what to do. Even now, they've conquered one country – Afghanistan – and it's still not pacified. And they don't know what to do about it. What's going to happen when they conquer a few more countries?

Again with this queer insight into the minds of men he doesn't know and has probably never met. I wish I could be as perceptive as Mr. Wallace is, distilling press briefings, speeches, and short interviews into a concrete definition of an individual.

The charges of imperialism are baseless in the context of setting up permanent external American States over the objections of the local population as the government sees fit. The reason we are in Afghanistan is because the country once left Al Qaeda free to operate as it wanted and the Taliban attempted to aid the terrorists the US sought in connection to 9/11, not to simply "pacify" the country. That's a gross distortion of reality, and on the same level as the kind Mr. Wallace previously railed against in policians.

I'm not sure if he's being negatively critical about the point of these men "understand[ing] hierarchy and giving orders" but those seem like requisite traits of men who must...understand and give orders to the heirarchy of enablers and employees below them, especially in the case of Defense Secretart Rumsfeld, who has the military forces of an entire nation below him.

In many ways these men remind me of the former rulers of the Soviet Union. They, too, were serious, humorless men who took their responsibilities very, very seriously. But, it turned out, they didn't know what they were doing.

My, isn't that just a perfectly logical comparison: Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney vs. Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev. Could this be a deliberate attempt at an appeal to emotion? There are far better folks to compare these guys to even granting Mr. Wallace's point (which I don't) that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney lack imagination, are unwise and humorless, and don't know what they are doing.

The former rulers of the Soviet Union had it in their minds to conquer what they could. It didn't work. Our current rulers have it in their minds to conquer what they can. It's not going to work, either. And it's not going to be so much that they pay the price, but the American public.

Even being open-minded about the previous attempt at smearing the current federal government leaders withers away after experiencing this flat-out blatant implication between the two groups. Again, Mr. Wallace should be focused on the different personalities be prefers government leaders to posess, rather than mixing the different genres of work experience those leaders may or may not have along with his personal dislike of our political leaders.

It is also not true that if something goes wrong, those in power have nothing to lose. They risk their reputations, their employment, their personal safety, the safety of their families and friends, and the guilt of doing something which turns out to be disastrous. They may be men of power, but they are still men, even if out of office.

Posted by Drizzten at February 24, 2003 01:59 AM