Billy,
I think you are right about Palin's swashbuckling quality. I never thought of it in that light; however, she doesn't seem to have the native intelligence to complete the package. She might also have the wrong inherent motivation to be a true statesman (statesperson?). She seems to enjoy being able to afford things like the new million dollar estate in AZ. While this is not mutually exclusive of exceptional service to the nation, my sincerity radar is on alert. No, I don't see a TR in the current bunch in either party. I think that a Patreaus or a Colin Powell might have potential, I don't see their stomach for politics. Chris From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 12:33 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [RC] [ RC ] The Great Outdoors and the Presidency needed : TR 2 Chris : I agree completely. The closest we have had to a modern era TR was JFK. Among candidates in recent memory --and I did not realize it when writing, you'll need to take me at my word on this-- ironically Sarah Palin has outdoor / swashbuckling qualities. That part is all for the good, and she is smart, but for one I sure don't have the confidence that she has the kind of intellect most needed. Of course, that didn't stop GWB from being elected, and didn't get in the way of Michael Dukakis becoming a nominee in 1988. I think that what else makes me dubious about Sarah is that she still has young children to look after, and a teen ( early 20s ? ) daughter who is a problem. Those, for mothers, are major distractions even if, yes, also sources of love and caring. But the point is that successful women in high office have all been women past child bearing age, far as I can tell. Can you think of exceptions to the rule ? Among the present crop of candidates I don't see a TR in the bunch. Billy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- message dated 9/19/2011 10:07:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Interesting observation Billy. I have marveled in the past at how someone with Wilson's brain could have flopped so badly. I like Ernie's term, "owning the whole problem". Another guy got killed up here in Montana by a grizzly last week. When you are in the outdoors (or in battle) in a situation where your intelligence must be used to keep you alive, you do, indeed, own the whole problem. I would love to see a swashbuckling TR emerge in the midst of the fractionalized and ridiculous political system that we now have. Chris From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dr. Ernie Prabhakar Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 10:40 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RC] [ RC ] The Great Outdoors and the Presidency Hi Billy, I think it is more than that, though outdoorsness helps. The one thing I've learned from watching the computer industry is that intelligence by itself is almost completely useless. The most concise statement I have of what actually works is: "humble expertise owning the whole problem" That is, you need simultaneously: a) be really knowledgeable about a particular topic b) acknowledge your limits and be willing to ask for help c) be obsessed with finding a workable solution I think people who actually deal with nature, aka the real world, *do* need to have those characteristics. As do soldiers who survive combat. Alas, lots of smart people confuse (a) with (c). :-( -- Ernie P. On Sep 18, 2011, at 8:36 PM, [email protected] wrote: I won't disagree. However, "one of the" is important. You mentioned GWB, but there was also Carter, not to mention --even if his term was abbreviated-- Gerald Ford. I would add Clinton if this was about morality in office, but the subject is more about effectiveness. There is a problem which no-one seems to have addressed. Why some intellectual presidents do really well while other brains in office, despite much hoopla, turn out to be flops. Jefferson and Madison were world class brains, and so was TR. Each was a roaring success. JFK might be added even if he did not have a full term. Alas, think of Wilson, Carter, and now BHO. What is the difference ? I have a theory, namely, that the successful intellectual presidents were men of outdoor action, sometimes military, but could be, as in the case of Jefferson, because of his activity as an outdoorsman generally, his interest in horticulture, in hunting, in a variety of such things. That is, if the substance of one's intelligence is essentially desk bound it is so divorced from the real world that all kinds of existential mistakes are inevitable. For sure, a couple of corollaries may be needed. The would-be president should have a primary profession that is obviously relevant to the office, and have a global outlook, from whatever source. Maybe you can add something or another, but as a general proposition this seems to add up. Billy ----------------------------------------------------------------------- message dated 9/18/2011 7:13:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Yeah, right up there with missing the whole WMD thing with Bush. What do we pay them for anyway? Oh, wait; now they wonder why nobody wants to pay for news... Sent from my iPhone On Sep 18, 2011, at 10:01, [email protected] wrote: > one of the most miserable performances in the modern history of the American presidency. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org <http://radicalcentrism.org/> -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
