Vice-presidential nominations

[Robert Sheridan]

On Sep 7, 2008, at 11:14 AM, David Bernstein wrote:

"...All things being equal, I'd much rather have a president who  
successfully ran a small business...."

***
Even that doesn't seem to be a prerequisite.  Harry Truman, failed  
haberdasher, comes to mind.  Lincoln failed far more often than he  
succeeded in running for elected office.  Success builds ego, while  
failure spurs initiative and effort.

No, the office of the president takes more than successfully running a  
lemonade stand.

***
May we turn to the Chinese dynasties, speaking of successfully running  
the lemonade stand?  There the question of succession, as in European  
and other dynasties, was decided by accident of birth, along with help  
such as alleged baby switching and installation of nephews, with the  
aid of courtiers, eunuchs, dowager empresses, and an otherwise  
colorful cast of characters intent on securing their position and  
lining their nests.  Qualifications and vetting had nothing to do with  
successful rule.  If the emperor turned out bad, well, he was ignored,  
the saying being to the effect that however fearsome the Imperial  
Dragon, he could be defeated by the Local Snake.  The dragon was so  
far away; he could be safely ignored.

The problem with Chinese dynasties, and American, I daresay, is that  
sometimes a bad leader chose a bad war, and then the Mongols, their  
worst nightmare, or the Manchus, sort of Mongols lite, entered and  
cleaned house in regime change of startling dimension.  This, I  
suppose, is why we want to look at a candidate's CV, to see whether  
he, or she, is apt to allow the Mongols or the Manchus into the Middle  
Kingdom, you know, the one where we reside, somewhere between Heaven  
and Earth.

Your faithful Celestial,

rs
sfls

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20080907/17f68b9a/attachment.htm