CMV: It is far more important for a global leader (president, prime minister) to be good at dealing with people than it is that they personally be educated beyond your average college grad.
Going to be using president as this example, although it works for all major global leaders.
The president doesn't need to have an advanced understanding of climate change, law, or even geography and cultures in order to be a good leader. I believe it is far, far more important that a president can read people's motives, spot lies, and be open to advice.
The president can't know everything, he's going to have gaps in his knowledge, be it a certain geographical area's history, science, or legal issues. That's why leaders hire advisors, experts in their field of study to give him advice on things he doesn't know about. But here's what a president does need to know.
He needs to know if the people closest to him are lying, or are biased in one way or another. He needs to be able to communicate, be it with fellow countrymen, or people and leaders of other nations. The president is, when you boil it down to the bare bones of the job, a representative of his people. He needs to be able to listen, weigh different opinions, and see through the bullshit someone like that has to deal with every day. He needs to know how to charm, how to motivate, how to inspire more than anything else.
The president's job isn't to run the country, it's to pick the people who do, and make sure that they do what the people want them to do.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views**! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
Posted Dec 14, 2016, 4:59 AM UTC
It is several times easier for him to do this I'd he actually has knowledge on what his people are talking about. Otherwise the basis on which he calls bullshit is faulty.
This is way easier if you're well versed and educated in the customs and traditions of many different peoples. You will communicate with other nation's leaders the best if you understand their language. This is obviously too high of a requirement, so we settle for understanding general rules of behavior and appropriate conduct.
The president sets the pace and direction of the country. He picks people that lead the country to some degree, but he should have a great enough understanding of the issues to determine how the people he leads will enact his vision, and he should know enough to be able to determine whether they're doing a good job at doing so.
A president may think "I enjoy his work in this field, I will make him of Secretary of Whatever." He can do this if he's versed and familiar with the field. If he isn't well versed, what is he basing the decision on? Feels like he's the right guy? Other people say he's good?
And most importantly, if you aren't well educated in something, you either don't have a vision on the direction you'd like to take us or it's not based on anything. If you don't understand how our choices effect the environment, how can we expect you to make choices (or appointments) that protect it. If you don't understand how our laws effect the economy, how can we trust you to recognize when laws will have adverse effects and strike them down? How can we trust you know the difference between one economist and another and which one to pick to help you lead?
You're simplifying what the president does quite a bit. What he does, first and foremost, is make decisions. He factors in what's important to us and he strategizes, planning his actions to produce the most good for all of us. These decisions require information, context, and the knowledge to know what they mean, as well as values that represent what's important to the citizens. Dealing with people is an important skill, but Presidential legacies are made on what they decided to do and whether they were smart enough to make the right decision. All the people skills in the world won't show you the best course of action.
From what I understand, the president isn't usually well versed in that many customs when he first decides to go to a country. He is given a "Crash course" of sorts on the big do's/don'ts. Sure, he has an average understanding of culture that someone like you or I, but considering the countless countries he needs to work with, he would have to be an anthropologist to understand them all, and a very good one at that.
As far as "knowing the issues" I think you might be forgetting just how many issues the president has to deal with... theirs health care, laws, military matters, government funding, money given to developing countries. To know as much as you seem to think he'd need to know he's need over a dozen doctorates just to understand fully the healthcare system and prescription drug regulation. No one man can do that, so they need to hire people who know what they are talking about.
As for deciding whether or not you should hire someone based on public opinion, it's actually a pretty good starting point. What others in the field think of the individual will speak volumes about him. Think of the current presidential choices for cabinet positions. Those choices clearly aren't based on the opinions of the experts in that field, and are solely based on one man's opinions and beliefs, a man who ISN'T an expert on stuff like climate change. If however he went with the popular opinion, he'd have someone who takes global warming seriously, as 97% of scientists do, and I think we'd be in a much better place for it.
The president, above all else, needs to keep in mind that he isn't the person everyone should look to. He's a specialist, he specializes in leadership.
Have you've ever heard the saying "Jack of all trades."? Most people forget the second part, "and master of none."
Why do you think this? You don't have to he an anthropologist to have a cursory understanding of how you should go about a discussion with leaders from different countries based on different customs.
Again, why do you think this? You don't require a doctorate to have an understanding of something. You don't need a doctorate to understand the effects of money given to other countries. You don't need a doctorate to understand our health care system and determine problem areas and structures.
And he doesn't go with the consensus because he isn't properly educated on climate change. This is my point entirely. We have someone who isn't educated on an issue, so he doesn't pick a good understanding of who he should pick. He picks someone he feels is right.
I'm aware of both parts of the phrase, and nowhere in my comment did I say he should be masters in all of them. I said he should have an understanding of all of them, so he understands the direction we should be going in, so he knows the signs to look for if we're on the right track so he can lead us in the proper direction. To go back to Trump, who doesn't believe in Climate Change, can he properly lead us in the best direction away from it? No. If it gets worse and worse from his actions, will he know enough about it to see he's making it worse and change course? No. All the social skills in the world will not help him.
They have appointees that can handle knowing every detail, of course, but you need knowledge to evaluate these appointees. Otherwise, they will be picked based on nothing and the president would be unable to evaluate what their underling is doing, whether it's important, effective, or worth it. This is effectively blindly trusting them with matters.