Success in Business and Success in Politics

[brightmoon]

Many people around the world in the "Age of Trump" now have the impression that if a candidate for elected office has some level if success in business world this means the candidate (regardless of experience as an elected official) should make a good political leader.

Why?

(1) History has not proven this to true. The last US President with significant business was Herbert Hoover. Outside the US there are very few business leaders who became successful politicians
(2) The idea that lack of experience in political leadership is a virtue which is is direct contradiction to the expectation for every other human activity. Inexperienced brain surgeons are not considered better than experienced ones.
(3) The free market model has been to inadequate to deliver many necessary service to the functioning of a civil society, health care, corrections, and education are three that come to mind. What good are skills that are build on skills used to lead free market institutions in government?

Discuss

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Success as a politician seems to be measured by opinion, not by a more objective set of criteria. Influencing opinions is the key skill of a politician.

Most business people are skilled towards objective outcomes, and delegate opinion to marketing and PR professionals.

A successful business politician is one who delivers on their objectives and has an excellent pr/publicity team.

For the most part, I think that non-politician type politicians will never be as successful politically because their priorities will usually put objectives first, even if they are unpopular.


I think the schools are a good metaphor: the most successful students and the most popular students are usually (not always) two distinct groups.

 

[Sinny]

Hm. Many US presidents are well versed in corporate/other law (that's how they 'legally' fuck us over), and Ivy league groomed. Just as over here in Britain, they are all going round the revolving door between big business and politics, and all come from grooming institutions (Eton, Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, "Dining Clubs" , Skull & Bones, Bullingdon etc etc)

As for the markets, we are dominated by the robber Barons, their stranglehold is extensive, nothing short of evolution can perhaps rectify that, we need to greatly undo, or completely restructure Globalisation and develop some collective altruism, and defend nation states.

Today's "leaders" are nothing more than figure heads, PR representatives, and PR diplomats, speaking on behalf of their financial sponsorship.

The sooner we stop maintaining their illusions the better.

Theresa May chose her words very carefully last week when she said that Britain was a "Meritocracy" , whilst her government has been quick to refer to Trump as "populism at its worst".. Interesting that she dropped the "democracy" lable... Britain has never been a democracy, indeed not whilst subordinate to the Crown.. but they liked to maintain that facade, yes they did.

Meritocracy, ha. No idea of the true ramifications of Brexit just yet, or the Trumpet.. turbulent times are ahead.

Theresa May also calling out for Globalisation to be reassessed.

I would just love to know what is going on behind closed doors.

Obamas, Sidney Austin, Bernadine Dohrn, Chicago (hot bed for domestic terrorism and subversion) https://www.google.co.uk/search?cli...er+michelle+sidley+austin&aqs=mobile-gws-lite..

Like, another Obama running in 2020? They've got a conglomerate on your political representation. Bush, Bush, Bush, Clinton , Clinton, Obama, Obama.

Representation? Who the fuck are they representing exactly? Sure ain't us. (I'm English, but you know what I mean)

 

[brightmoon]

The concept of the "meritocracy" is a complete fraud, a fairy tale concept for the masses. Class based divisions are stronger than ever but if we live in the make believe world where many people refuse to acknowledge their existence. The masses start to think that anyone could be a billionaire if they had the smarts and drive. The small fraction of celebrities that follow the "rags to riches" story feed the false narrative. This is why in America and now other places in the world people refuse to identify as working class. If you don't identify as working class how can fight for your interests? You are just content sleeping on Chinese made Trump sheets with a belly full of Trump steak.

 

[Sinny]

I totally agree, so many people are busy being "good little consumers", and so many are absorbed by the shiny lights, and little gadgets, that they forget that we *still are in the rat races.

Feudalism has never left us, we are still basic slaves to our States, Royal Houses, the Church, and our adept International Financiers.

The concepts we are bound by today are ancient and barbaric, and our currently rulers today know that we would feel that way, and that is why everything is damn public facade. There is a ruling class, and a subsequent hierarchy of classes. We largely inherit our positions at birth, although some social mobility is possible and encouraged among the lower classes, there is no way just anyone can make it to the top, or anywhere near it.

By the power invested in them, they exhort our trust, our labour, our taxes, our land, our resources, our education, our mobility, and our intelligence. (and they are doing so at an ever increasing rate, with interesting consequences, as open source technology and data permeates the world)

They are illegitimate, they are principally deplorable, they are laughing in our faces.. and yet .. they still hold their position, - by the adulation of layman, who refuses to believe that s/he has been fooled.

 

[James]

I think the Stanley Milgram (admittedly controversial) experiments on human obedience, probably explain quite a lot, about why things don't change much.

People generally follow and obey what they're told to do, by those they believe to be in authority. They usually have to reach breaking point before they rebel.

I think to some large degree we are only superficially allowed, a limited amount of democracy, but it is very limited. Those who control the money supply, rule "behind the curtain" and it's been this way for centuries, as far as I can tell.

I think often the true purpose of politics, is to keep us divided, stressed and confused. I hope I'm wrong but that's how it appears to me. Ultimately, it's up to people to organise and put their relatively small differences aside, if they want real change.

Sadly this doesn't seem to happen too often.