"I notice that our presidential elections always seem to boil down to cartoon characterizations of the main candidates. The Republican is generally characterized by the media as the person of principle and character, albeit a bit dim-witted. (Reagan, George Bush junior, McCain)
The Democrat is generally characterized as whip-smart but with a suspect character. (Clinton, Kerry, Clinton again, Obama)
This got me wondering which sort of candidate is a more dangerous leader. Would you prefer a brilliant person with a suspicious character or a dumb person with high character?
If I HAD to choose from among those two bad options, I'd go with the smart person with suspicious character. If that President is lining his pockets and playing nude Twister in the oval office, it doesn't have that much impact on me. But if he does something stupid with the defense or economy, that hurts me.
Would you like another GMA in Malacanang? Smart yet with a suspicious character. Or an FPJ or Noli De Castro? No-so-smart, yet can gather the support of the masses.
Personally, I'd go with another GMA. Or another Ramos. Or somebody like Thaksin Sinawatra. Despite the allegations of corruptions, I know they can be at the top of their game.
The presidency requires that the president is capable of making personal, smart decisions. They have advisers, but they should be smart enough to know when they are being wrongly advised.
Put a dumb, populist president and there's always the danger of them making poor judgement because, hey, you can't always trust presidential advisers giving the best options due to vested personal interests.
I'm not saying that smart presidentiables don't make the same dumb decisions once-in-a-while. But, looking at it objectively, I'd rather have somebody smart leading the way for me, if my life depended on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment