I second that you can be an awful, rude, pushy, unsympathetic, driven, alcoholic, slovenly, unfaithful, promiscuous person and still be a fine leader. Several of those attributes would probably help.
That doesn’t really come anywhere near to “pretty much every negative characteristic you could think of”, of course, but meh.
Agreed, but I’ve got a decent memory, and can think of a LOT of negative characteristics. I doubt anyone on earth has anywhere near “pretty much every” one of them. I took it to mean something more along the lines of “this person really sucks, as a human being”, rather than a literal interpretation that no human being even approaches, and I can think of plenty of people, on both sides of the aisle, that suck at being decent human beings.
Don’t forget to exclude the shitty/ineffective politicians from the equation. They’re present on both sides.
Unfortunately, I have to fight the hypothetical. Jack is an impossibility. Sure, he can be good at getting people to do things and follow him, but since he is the most horrible person imaginable, following him will inherently not be good for the country. He’s going to be selfish and enjoy hurting others, so he’s going to harm the country to benefit himself.
This is something I really, really want people to understand. Being good is not just some isolated concept with no connection to the real world. The things we consider good are the things that are better for everyone. That’s what makes them good. Sure, maybe some things we think are good now will turn out not to be good in the future, but that just means we change what we call good.
This is what I mean by saying that good and evil are objective. There is “what is good for us” and “what is bad for us.”
The only way I can answer this hypothetical is if I take out the idea that the bad guy will help, and change it to “circumstances will prevent him from actually hurting us.” And, to make it a challenge, I have to add the risk that the good guy will make mistakes that could harm us.
Still, my choice would be the good guy, since he’s better for us in the long run, simply because he’s good. I’ll just have to come together with a lot of people to help prevent him from making any mistakes that would actually cause problems.
Then again, I’m not a big fan of the whole “leadership” concept anyways. I don’t want a leader: I want a representative. I’m inherently wary of authority, and see them as someone we have to police at all times.
Err…I meant to vote for Jack in the poll, but I accidentally voted for James by mistake.
There’s a message in there somewhere, I’m pretty sure…
I don’t vote for people as a reward for them. I vote for them because I think they’ll move the world in the direction I want. Set up the scenario with ideal conditions for Jack, and I wouldn’t piss on him if he’s on fire, but I’d vote for him for president.
Ideal conditions include:
-He’s convinced me he’s going to push for policies I like (this is a huge uphill battle for a dishonest pandering bigot like Jack).
-He’s got a semi-hostile congress, where his deal-making skills will help him push the policies through, whereas James wouldn’t be able to do so.
-This is a primary, and the opposition candidate for the main election is a real fuckin stinker.
I’d vote for Jack under those circumstances. But like I said, how is a sonofabitch like Jack, who’s on record as breaking promises left and right, and notorious for saying whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear, going to convince me?
I’d vote for Jack.
The issue with people like Trump is they do not respect western values (democracy, rule of law, free press, independent judiciary, balance of powers). Also their incompetence causes major problems in both domestic and foreign nations.
If Jack is a horrible person but he respects western values, the rule of law and doesn’t fuck things up, I’d vote for him.
But Trump proves that if you are a fuckup, it probably permeates all of your life. Someone who is a total fuckup in one area but pristine in others doesn’t seem that common. But I could be wrong.
The hypothetical fails, because your choices as presented predicts the success and failure of their terms as president.
You don’t have that luxury as a voter.
Who I would vote for is moot, as I wouldn’t be eligible to vote in the US.
Sadly, a good person who is incompetent has the potential to do a great deal more harm than a bad person who is competent. (Certain caveats apply)
I don’t think there is such thing as an awful person but an excellent leader because an abominable human being would never act in such a manner that would benefit those who depended on him/her.
On the other hand, there is no excellent leader that shows only positive human traits. People should tolerate a certain degree of imperfection in their leaders but they should also hold them responsible when they break the law.
Depends on the circumstances. In combat, it’s far better to have a general who is an asshole but knows how to pick the best strategy for defeating the enemy, than to have a nice guy general who can’t tell his right hand from his left and gets everyone killed.
Actually what we got now sounds like a mix of the two. 
I went Jack because at a certain point, when pushed by outside forces and/or natural disasters, leadership (which I personally define as the ability to unify others to a common goal or purpose) is what I think we’re going to need. And boy howdy -------- do we ever need it these days. And like for the last 241 years or so.
I still haven’t encountered any assholes that truly were competent at anything other than selling themselves; before voting for someone of that description I’d have to be able to believe that they exist.
It’s not about kind vs unkind, but awful vs honorable or principled. Plus, we’re supposed to compare an abject human being with a person of integrity caeteris paribus. Others things being equivalent such as intelligence, temperament, etc., I would rather vote for a person of integrity even in times of war. An abominable leader would commit atrocities just because he were lazy or for the mere fun of it. He wouldn’t blink if he had to send his troops to death if this were a comfortable way for him save his skin. This guy would torture enemies unnecessarily and have his troops to commit mass murder or constant rape. This kind of military leader would eventually get us all into trouble sooner or later.
Yeah, people.
Johnson was a racist, yet got civil rights and medicare through.
On the other side of the aisle, Nixon was a flat out bastard but he got us the EPA and called for universal health care.
It’s certainly possible for a dick to do good work. It just has to be in their best interests for one reason or another. That sort of compromise is - should be - what politics is all about. Sadly, these days in the US, it isn’t. It’s now about team identity and victory. The sportsification of the American electorate.
He once disrespected the flag and the troops by refusing to stand for the national anthem.
Say you’re in legal trouble - which of the two people in the OP would you rather hire as a lawyer?
this.
one can be a good manager and an awful person, but every leader leads by example. Poor example = poor leader.
I go for the ‘awful person but excellent leader’ without hesitation since it’s stipulated as fact, but I’m not sure that description could fit an actual human.
I honestly don’t understand what this is supposed to translate to in real life. There are a lot of negative charactersitics that severely impact someone’s ability to succeed at a lot of endeavors, or that reflect on whether I believe them about their policy statements. For example, I wouldn’t expect someone who routinely rips people off in his personal life to avoid ripping off the country as president. If it’s something like ‘in his head he’s racist/sexist/homophobic/etc but he always votes for equal rights’ then I’m not really sure how I’d even know that without him doing stuff that would hurt his political career or personal ventures.
Also, unless the world changes radically in the next few years, I don’t think anyone who I would count as ‘a really great guy’ would have a serious chance at the presidency, especially if they’re only a mediocre leader. Most successful politicians are pretty awful individuals who I wouldn’t want to be around in person, and do a ton of things I find objectionable. Voting for me always involves holding my nose or willful ignorance, politics is a dirty business.
Random piece of advice: for a future hypothetical, give them names that aren’t strongly gendered, like “Chris” (Christopher/Christine) and “Sam” (Samuel/Samantha) when you want to do that, it seems to make it easier for people to ignore gender if the name doesn’t point it out to them.
I have to agree with this. We do sometimes need leaders to address certain specific issues – the president is too much of good-shit/bad-shit package deal.