3 ms·
As with most things in life, parts I agree with, other statements need the opposing view. Temperance. Using a Presidential analogy, it advocates a style much
by araes 8y ago
As with most things in life, parts I agree with, other statements need the opposing view. Temperance.
Using a Presidential analogy, it advocates a style much like Reagan. Founders should focus on vision and being the flagbearer of that standard. Then have the cleverness to delegate much of the responsibility for keeping the ship afloat to talented individuals without regard for ego. As a general process, seems reasonable. Probably less stress, more focus on important tasks. To an extreme, you become detached and unaware of the undercurrents within your firm. The vision can wander because it is decoupled from reality on the ground.
On the counter side, I would argue there is value in being more akin to a Clinton style figurehead. Fairly well known for keeping abreast of everything, to the point of annoyance. Leaving people people free to do what they do, ie, not micro-managing, but being aware of what is occurring - remaining engaged. To an extreme, you are obsessive and obstructing rather than staying informed. High stress, and not enough time maintaining vision and outlook.
Needs both, and fundamentally disagree that we as entities are limited to a "linear" growth. It may just seem linear as you approach the event horizon. To those far away, your change is remarkable.
- hydrox24 8y agoThe other thing that needs to be considered in political office is the long-term effect of shaping an institution. In Australia, P.M. John Howard (1996–2007) slowly centralised a great deal of policy making power by moving it from departments (each headed up by a minister) to his own office/department, PM&C. Clearly he was capable of the demands this put on him, and was able to construct a Cabinet (inner-circle of top ministers) to help in sufficiently. Since 2007, this change seems to have destabilised several governments by allowing a micro-managing figure to bite off more than they could chew, infuriating their own party, who then threw them out, partially because of internal stresses on the party strucutre. Particularly the first Rudd gov. (07-10) and the Abbott gov (13-15). This is a very specific interpretation however, other Australians may well disagree.
- araes 8y agoInteresting thought. Could also be taken as view on the trades of power concentration, and in particular, Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Autocracy. A natural formation when a strong, capable, well-liked leader comes into power, or in the presence of a vacuum of competent leadership. They can be highly beneficial and efficient, rapidly responsive to change, like a sword through red-tape, or oppressive and controlling. Largely dependent on the character of the captain of the ship. And viewpoint. Caesar was loved by many, killed by a few. Lincoln, J.F.K, Gandhi, similar. And they can often be destabilizing when they end. Even if not by such drastic means as above. A classic problem of monarchies that if you had no children or incompetent children, your gov't was in trouble. Not that pure republics and democracies with strong decentralization are a whole lot better. Just different issues. Why they oscillate. And even those often function best with a strong figurehead.