3 ms·

I don't think any meaningful correlation can be drawn from what a head-of-state or high ranking politician studied in college or where they went to college to t

I don't think any meaningful correlation can be drawn from what a head-of-state or high ranking politician studied in college or where they went to college to their aptitude/competence for governance. Our last two presidents have professional degrees from the same institution (Harvard) and they do not govern in the same fashion in most areas other than counter-terrorism. China also doesn't choose it's politicians via elections, thus someone who is highly technical and let me stereotype here for a second... most likely not charismatic and/or having developed a sense of political empathy... facets that a lawyer or career manager (MBA) are more likely to develop, would be able to move up in the ranks (in the CCP in this case). However, this doesn't really reflect on HOW someone chooses to implement policy or govern, comparing China vs U.S. is apples and oranges because you can't legitimately protest the CCP, this isn't the case of the major parties in the U.S. Thus the policies will be molded to some extent of popular opinion, which is normally not true in a dictatorship.

morgante 11y ago
First of all, in the world scheme President Obama and President Bush are quite close together in their governing strategies and policies. That's the nature of the kind of politician we elect in the United States. However, it extends far beyond the head of state. All levels of government in Chinese government are dominated by engineers instead of lawyers or career politicians. > However, this doesn't really reflect on HOW someone chooses to implement policy or govern Of course it does. We even have a word for it: technocracy. There are dramatic differences and if you don't think that then I'm curious why you delved into perpetrating negative stereotypes about engineers.
- adrenalinelol 11y ago
  I don't agree that Bush and Obama share governing strategies. For example GWB was very comfortable out-sourcing large problems to his lieutenants, whereas Obama seems to do it only if he feels it'd result in a better outcome if he wasn't personally involved. Items such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the VP/Rumsfeld, Mortgage crisis to Paulson/Bernanke, etc... Contrast this to Obama where he held multiple cabinet meetings with regard troop levels in Afghanistan early in his presidency. On foreign policy they also differ where GWB seemed to be very decisive (or overly depending on who you ask). Whereas Obama to this day exercises extreme caution, at least publicly. I could cite a lot of examples, but of course this is more the realm of opinion. On my somewhat poorly worded point about engineers on average being less interpersonal than a typical lawyer/mba. I don't view such attributes negatively; my intention was to point out that engineers' day-to-day jobs don't normally involve work oriented social interaction with people they don't know(i.e. someone other than their team). Putting it another way a lawyer/manager without strong interpersonal skills has a lower career ceiling than an engineer with personality trait. Thus it isn't unreasonable to assume said fields attract different types of people. Thus governance being a partial function of what subject someone opted for in school would in my opinion act as a very small variable in contrast to why X person choose said subject. > Of course it does. We even have a word for it: technocracy. It's an apples to oranges comparison if it's China(or Singapore) vs. the U.S. The governments of the former don't have anything close to real representation for it's people(More China than Singapore), thus the policy makers don't have to seriously consider popular opinion outside of keeping the populace from revolting, which is a far cry from the American system where an individual politician can be unseated within a short time frame.

morgante 11y ago

First of all, in the world scheme President Obama and President Bush are quite close together in their governing strategies and policies. That's the nature of the kind of politician we elect in the United States. However, it extends far beyond the head of state. All levels of government in Chinese government are dominated by engineers instead of lawyers or career politicians. > However, this doesn't really reflect on HOW someone chooses to implement policy or govern Of course it does. We even have a word for it: technocracy. There are dramatic differences and if you don't think that then I'm curious why you delved into perpetrating negative stereotypes about engineers.

adrenalinelol 11y ago
I don't agree that Bush and Obama share governing strategies. For example GWB was very comfortable out-sourcing large problems to his lieutenants, whereas Obama seems to do it only if he feels it'd result in a better outcome if he wasn't personally involved. Items such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the VP/Rumsfeld, Mortgage crisis to Paulson/Bernanke, etc... Contrast this to Obama where he held multiple cabinet meetings with regard troop levels in Afghanistan early in his presidency. On foreign policy they also differ where GWB seemed to be very decisive (or overly depending on who you ask). Whereas Obama to this day exercises extreme caution, at least publicly. I could cite a lot of examples, but of course this is more the realm of opinion. On my somewhat poorly worded point about engineers on average being less interpersonal than a typical lawyer/mba. I don't view such attributes negatively; my intention was to point out that engineers' day-to-day jobs don't normally involve work oriented social interaction with people they don't know(i.e. someone other than their team). Putting it another way a lawyer/manager without strong interpersonal skills has a lower career ceiling than an engineer with personality trait. Thus it isn't unreasonable to assume said fields attract different types of people. Thus governance being a partial function of what subject someone opted for in school would in my opinion act as a very small variable in contrast to why X person choose said subject. > Of course it does. We even have a word for it: technocracy. It's an apples to oranges comparison if it's China(or Singapore) vs. the U.S. The governments of the former don't have anything close to real representation for it's people(More China than Singapore), thus the policy makers don't have to seriously consider popular opinion outside of keeping the populace from revolting, which is a far cry from the American system where an individual politician can be unseated within a short time frame.