full article i didn't see where this was going at first, but he raises a good point bringing his concept to the political field. not necessarily saying that his comparisons have any weight, he's a psychologist and not a political analyst after all, but it does bring a new angle to the whole "who has more/less experience" argument.
Experience doesn't mean much if you have been doing the same wrong things over and over. That's why the whole obama/Palin "experience" thing isn't a big deal. If you have a gift for leadership you can learn the technical logistics of the job.
i think the reason it's still an issue is because we can't tell if either of them have that gift for leadership, which is when that slow learned experience would come into play.
One of my fellow graphic artists here at work, since retired, used to tell people "Anyone can draw. It's all formula and techniques that can be learned." Bullshit, says I. Anyone can't be tought to draw WELL. Talent and style are very important aspects of it. I've seen people without a moment of art training in their lives who create great beauty. I've also seen people who worked hard at it, and still end up with uninspired mediocrity.
I mentioned this in a tread last week (not the article but the concept) and I have to be fair and admit it applies to both Obama and Palin...there is such a thing as being naturally gifted, whether it's throwing a baseball or playing guitar or being a leader of men.
Experience without aptitude is useless. Senator Kennedy is about as experienced as you can get in the Senate and he is thoroughly useless. Aptitude without experience is a totally unknown quantity and even the greatest innate talent needs to be trained to reach its full potential. Knowing how to do a job and innate artistic talent are not comparable quantities. Anyone who thinks you can minimize the importance of either aptitude or experience by showing that the other one is also important is spinning, period. Both Obama and Palin have an aptitude for leadership (which one of them has the most depends on which qualities one prefers in a leader) and neither one of them has, as yet, sufficient experience to run the government. That is why I have said, and will say again, that both of them could be good vice-presidential candidates, but neither of them should be proposed for immediate election to the presidency. Only one party seems to have understood that strategy.
Experience and aptitude are both important. But beyond experience being useless without aptitude, there's also the question of good vs. bad experience. Many people seem to agree that the current tradition of governing is no good. Being experienced in it might well be an argument against a candidate. Unexperienced aptitude is an unknown; but when the alternative is a known failure, what do you choose?
My thought as well, Packard. I think many Republican votes are being cast as proxy "palin for Pres" votes. The underlying supposition that McCain's infirmity or death is imminent.
I'll add values to aptitude. Those two together have far more in making a good judgment than experience.
I tend to think of her more as an "Apprentice President"....the admitted gaps in her knowledge base/experience to be fillied in by, as it were, studying under the tutelage of McCain and potentially others in his inner circle. She will, to be sure, have to have the aptitude to sort the wheat from the chaf in that process, but there's seems to be potential for that.
