Wishful Thinking = Good Leaders?

Does Acme need Dick? Why should Dick be the leader? Dick is multi-cultural, well-educated, a highly-experienced manager. Not many of us compare to his qualifications; most of us don't have nearly such an impressive CV. A touch cerebral at times, an overpowering intelligence, I wager many would have trouble relating to Dick. Why not choose someone else, someone we can more easily relate to perhaps.

Maybe a small town mayor who likes to fish, hunt and play basketball. A hockey mom say, who struggles to balance family life and career. A good, god-fearin' woman, tough but with lipstick.

Okay, Acme is a corporation, not a democracy, and until it goes public Dick rules by force majeur, overwhelming force: while too cultured to put it this way, he would say to dissenters, "It's my way or the highway." But the principle is identical: what do I/you/we want in a leader?

As an investor or shareholder (hypothetically speaking) I want the top job to go to someone who has both relevant experience and a proven track record in this specific field, in other words, is qualified to get the job done. Someone like Dick.

Do such "qualifications" guarantee Dick will get the job done? Nope. No way. Decisons based on analyzing qualifications are not necessarily right, but are more frequently right. And there's the rub.

As I tell my logic students, logic is all about probability, not certainty. If you want certainty go to church. Logical analysis writ large can only make conclusions more likely right, can increase the odds of being right. No small feat that, for, as gamblers know, win 51% of time and you'll be rich.

This is in no way an argument against Governor Palin: only by actually assuming and carrying out the job of VP (or P) would we know if she could do the job. My point is not against the person, it is against the process. Oh yes, and against hypocricsy, but I'll get to that.

Okay, I live in small town (Sooke, pop. 9,000 give or take). We need a new Fire Chief. As this decision could have a direct bearing on whether my house burns down or not I am somewhat interested in who we select. While I hope we choose someone who has good communication skills and can "relate" to the community at large, this is not highest, or even high, on my list. I want someone who has shown s/he likely can do the job.

I want us to choose someone with relevant fire-fighting experience, someone who has shown they can motivate and manage a team of firefighters. I would turn down an accountant with extensive accounts receivable experience, no matter how big a team of accountants s/he led. The demands on each position, fire chief and accounting manager, are just too different.

Could the accountant be a great fire chief? Certainly, is it possible, just not likely. Not something you'd like to bet your mortgage on. Would you let a dentist perform brain surgery on your child? No? Why not? They both are medical professionals and, by my extensive experience with "specialists," I'd wager dentists are easier for most people to relate to than brain surgeons. I'm just not sure the dentist drill is the right tool for brain operations, and that's the point.

The Republicans chose the wrong tool for the VP job.

Even a true GOP sycophant can't say Palin's scant executive experience makes her "qualified" for the demands of the modern VP position (let alone qualified for the Big Chair itself). Certainly I see no way to argue that Palin's name was the result of a long, detailed analysis of job needs and qualified possible candidates. She might do a good job, but you would not want to bet your country on it ... unless you had to.

McCain chose Palin for reasons other than her qualifications for likely VP success: he chose her because he had to, had to shake up the polls, had to secure and energize the GOP base. Since the surprise choice he and the GOP polls have done back flips trying to find reasons to prove the already-decided result. The reasons (comparing needs with qualifications) did not drive the result, the result (we choose her as the candidate) drove the almost-desperate search for reasons.

Out of the many possibile fallacies, I think this is best described as wishful thinking, that:

1. I (McCain, Republicans) stand to gain from believing P.
2. Hence, I (McCain, Republicans) should, prudentially, believe P.

Now I can hope all I want to that the dentist will operate successfully on my child's brain tumor, and, as I will benefit from believing it, I of course will try my best to believe it. But don't you think I'd have a better chance believing if it was brain surgeon, not a dentist? And that if I could choose, I'd choose the dentist for cavities, not cranium.

I've racked my cranium and can't think of an area outside of politics (and faith) where we happily indulge in wishful thinking. We insist on an experienced fire chief, we (or Americans, maybe not Canucks) would sue the dentist as soon a drill touched scalp. The only time we let the unqualified do something is when we have no better choice.

Says something about the state of the GOP, both that they had to do something special to get back into the race and that Palin was the best special they could find.

Next (?) time I'll broaden the point to the anti-expert bias of the Republicans in particular, and Western society in general. Best said by Nietzsche himself,

Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive.

In defense of the barely-qualified-for-VP Palin the GOP used an anti-expert, anti-qualifications argument, going so far as the quintessentially-cosmopolitan Giuliani saying questions about Palin stemmed from Democrats thinking her town was not "cosmopolitan" enough.

Can't you just see dressed-in-drag Rudi (the video with the Donald is priceless) settling down in Wassalia, in moose fur perhaps. With lipstick.

Now that is cosmopolitan.

Fine, back to business. I hope I've made the point (long winded as usual: sigh) that we select people for position based on their suitability for carrying out the duties of that position, of their likelihood of being successful in the specific postion. Like much in life, decsions are situational, i.e., based on the specifics of the situation at hand. One size does not fit all.

As an investor/shareholder (hypothetical remember) in Acme I care very much that we have Dick in charge, and that Dick selects new hires based on the merits, that is, on their suitability for the job, not the cut of their jib or preference in fur. I want Acme to make me money.

I would hope that Republicans want their Prez and V-Prez to make them safe, rich and healthy. At least that is what I want in a leader. And as Prime Minister Harper just dissolved Canada's parliament this morning, I will get a chance to vote for leader on October 14.

Oh joy. Just for a minute I wish one of the contenders wore lipstick. I'd settle for a sense of humor.