Quote:

Being a persuasive communicator is a useful tool. It's not the sign of being a good leader. A good leader is one that does not shrink from making the tough choices and, even more importantly, get them right.

You can make all the choices you like, but if no one listens to you not only are you not a good leader, you're not even a leader.

Quote:

GWB effectively communicated to get people to back the Iraq War (at least, he got the home crowd, the American public, to do so in big enough numbers). It still was a disaster

His spin guys communicated, he could barely string two words together.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Quote:

Sigh. Indeed, you are constantly surprised to discover what my positions are.

A bit unfair, that.

Quote:

Youre argument is that "we" are all so stupid that we pick bad leaders. Well if we're that oblivious, how could we overcome the faults of the bad leaders that we picked? Our bad leaders would lead us into trouble and we, idiots that we are, would follow them like sheep. If that really happened, we'd be extinct.

As the OP points out, we are not so stupid as to ignore bad leadership when it messes up. At that point, we are happy to get rid of the bad leader. Indeed, we can go as far as delighting in the withdrawal of our favour - Witness Blair fall from grace...

Look, I don't see how it can be so controversial. Children picks the likely winner of leadership contests. Children. They're not going to decide based on political positions and the relative merit of proposed policies.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Zichao

You can make all the choices you like, but if no one listens to you not only are you not a good leader, you're not even a leader.

Yep, it's a bit of a catch 22. You need both the smarts and the communication skills. But the communication skills remain a tool to get people to listen/implement your smart shit. Otherwise, your com skills are, like your charm, "superficial" and "shallow"...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

A bit unfair, that.

Well it happens a lot.

Quote:

As the OP points out, we are not so stupid as to ignore bad leadership when it messes up. At that point, we are happy to get rid of the bad leader. Indeed, we can go as far as delighting in the withdrawal of our favour - Witness Blair fall from grace...

But according to you, we just then go and pick another charlatan.

Quote:

Look, I don't see how it can be so controversial. Children picks the likely winner of leadership contests. Children. They're not going to decide based on political positions and the relative merit of proposed policies.

Maybe that tells us something about contemporary democracy instead? It's also been remarked that as recently as the 70's, you could be a pop star if had a good voice, even if you weren't particulalry photogenic - Mama Cass being a cass in point.

We choose politicians on factors that have little do with their actual competence. Choosing the leader of a hunter-gatherer band, or on a factory floor, where everyone is intimately familair with who is competent and who isn't, is a very different matter.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Well it happens a lot.

Sorry I pissed you off. No offense meant...

Quote:

But according to you, we just then go and pick another charlatan.

Well, from Blair's "A Better Britain" to Cameron's "Big Society"... Hmmm...

Quote:

Maybe that tells us something about contemporary democracy instead?

Maybe. But I wouldn't assume that we were better in the past, what with inherited leaders for a long long time. Prior to that, well, it's bound to have been more "democratic" so maybe modern democracy isn't a bad template?

Quote:

It's also been remarked that as recently as the 70's, you could be a pop star if had a good voice, even if you weren't particulalry photogenic - Mama Cass being a cass in point.

Mama Cass looked like she had rather pretty facial features. But, fine, maybe it's all modern consumerism and capitalism that is to blame. As usual.

Quote:

We choose politicians on factors that have little do with their actual competence. Choosing the leader of a hunter-gatherer band, or on a factory floor, where everyone is intimately familair with who is competent and who isn't, is a very different matter.

Sure. But, in a technological society, presumably, you're going to have to choose leaders whom you do not know on a personal basis.

And, even in a small group, I suspect one upmanship and warmth and looking 'appropriate' (for the role) are going to be big factors.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Yep, it's a bit of a catch 22. You need both the smarts and the communication skills. But the communication skills remain a tool to get people to listen/implement your smart shit. Otherwise, your com skills are, like your charm, "superficial" and "shallow"...

They're skills. I'm not going to denigrate them just because I don't like what someone does with them.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

That's probably how it came about that you like Chirac and I don't...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.