Leadership: Via Privilege & Merit

Re: Leadership: Via Privilege & Merit


Who decided what elections were won based on merit and which were won based on priviledge? What evidence is there for claims of either for any elected official?

Neither is worth examining until such time as they are proven to be factual to begin with.

I am agreeing with Fishin' (i.e. his point has merit).

"Merit" is an awfully subjective term.

If one claims that Clinton had merit and Bush didn't-- isn't that just a way of saying that one likes Clinton and doesn't like Bush?

Do you want to provide an objective way to measure one's merit?

I find it difficult to explain what I consider to be obvious.

Bush the son of a wealthy family with a father who was Vice President for 8 years and President for 4 years, with a vast number of wealthy and powerful friends. That would qualify as a poster boy for privilege in my book.

Clinton the poor son of a drunken father raised on the wrong side of the track by his hard working mother wins a Rhoades Scholarship and becomes Governor of Arkansas and then goes on to beat the Bush who was former Vice President. That would qualify for the poster boy for meritocracy in my book.

That it is "obvious" to you says more about you, than it does about either Bush or Clinton.

Your criteria for "merit" is subjective.

Others (even others in this forum) would point out that Bush is a man of God who overcame a drinking problem, managed a baseball team and added investment into education as Governor of Texas.

Others might also point out that Clinton lied on national TV, and brought disgrace in the oval office. The argument that Clinton's character problems detract from his "merit" is perfectly reasonable to many Americans.

I am not going argue the facts... I am just pointing out that people with different beliefs, or political viewpints, will judge the "Merit" of Bush and Clinton in very different ways.

That's what we mean by subjective.