Nah. A good president really only needs just one skill: Knowing how to hire good people.
Other than that the president himself can be just a figurehead for entertainment.
Trump clearly knows how to hire good people, so while I would not vote for him, I'm also not really worried about what will happen if he does win.
If you think about it, the skillset needed to win an election, is not the same skillset you need for making good calculated decisions.
So IMO we really should not be evaluating candidates on their personal qualifications, but rather on how good they are at hiring good people to do the real work.
This problem is true of any candidate. The closer you look the less that seems to be there. But then again, that's when you as a voter get to weight these things as you'd like when choosing a candidate you'll support. The President of the United States is such a unique job it's really hard to know what prior experiences make one truly qualified. No matter how good the opinions or plans, actual governing is a different beast.
Yes. A talent for winning elections is something. It isn't a talent for governing or evidence of policy wisdom, but it is a talent. Sometimes a lack of scruples or shame can be a talent, too.
I think Trump is a good example of how luck and skill interact. He absolutely has a talent for selling his ideas to a big chunk of people. I don't think he would have actually become president though, if it weren't for a number of things out of his control: if Putin hadn't been trying to stir up discord, if there'd been a compelling Republican alternative, if James Comey hadn't made that last-minute announcement reminding everyone of the emails again.
This is exactly the conclusion of an interview of Barbara Corcoran[1] (a business-woman who has known Trump for years) back in May:
"He's probably one of the most powerful & effective salespeople I have ever met in my life"
But as she mentions, good salesman skills aren't what is expected of a President's job. It's certainly a very good asset for winning votes in the election, but not what people should want to see in a leader. In a smaller scale, it looks similar to the absolute best car dealership salesman elected mayor of his town.
And that's kind of scary. I don't want some average Joe I can relate to being the most powerful person in the world. I want someone smarter than me with a lot of solid political experience who knows how to navigate issues while being pragmatic enough to get stuff done. Being president of the US isn't like being a plumber.
Well, maybe in the future Americans will consider some quality besides entertainment value when selecting their leader. But that would require Americans to see their government as something worthwhile, and the Presidency as a duty for which competence is a virtue and not a vice.
But in practice Trump wouldn't be directly involved at all, don't worry about it.
Out of the three things listed, being a horrible manager of people is definitely disqualifying for a presidential candidate (the primary job of the POTS is managing people.)
That said, while Machiavelli has a point, the opposite is also true: that many leaders have fallen due to losing the trust of their key supporters. No king rules alone, knowing how to keep your supporters happy while still being flexible is a vital talent for a democratic leader. Even more so, many states have fallen due to their allies deciding they can no longer be trusted in negotiations, and the president is the face of the US. You can see the consequences untrustworthy presidents have had in our weakening bargaining power with many of our allies, such as the EU’s many talks of becoming more self reliant. Having a president that at least knows how to appear to be keeping their word to people that interact with them is incredibly important in our current geopolitical climate.
Basically, trust isn’t valueless. A good manipulator knows how to weigh the positives and negatives of breaching trust.
We should expect the most powerful office in the world to hire the best people for the job. Saying that Donald Trump is "beyond repair" (which is a statement I happen to agree with) is not disqualifying. The idea that it is disqualifying has a word: cronyism.
How hard is it to figure out that something can be important and yet not the only thing to consider? I think running something would be pretty useful experience to being President. I do not however plan to vote for every incumbent President simply because the job title President is more impressive than anything else someone could do.
Trumps nomines were good pick from his party point of view, because they decide based of their politics. It had nothing to do with qualifications, despite people pontificating about it now.
I always find these sorts of articles ridiculous. Its like those people who always say "we need an businessman president!" A regular profession is largely irrelevant to the skills needed to be an effective President. The relevant limitation isn't someone who has the right ideas. It's finding someone who can savvily spend political capital to achieve particular ends.
Glib, but I've heard it said that narcissism is a prerequisite for the job. What rational human actually believes that they are qualified to be the most powerful person on Earth?
That said, most presidents have had qualifications other than narcissism.
Other than that the president himself can be just a figurehead for entertainment.
Trump clearly knows how to hire good people, so while I would not vote for him, I'm also not really worried about what will happen if he does win.
If you think about it, the skillset needed to win an election, is not the same skillset you need for making good calculated decisions.
So IMO we really should not be evaluating candidates on their personal qualifications, but rather on how good they are at hiring good people to do the real work.
reply