rs at robertsheridan.com
Sun Sep 7 11:42:58 PDT 2008
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
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
Your faithful Celestial,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof