| Ok - thanks for clarifying. I don't think that this assertion strengthens an argument that voting for Trump is better than voting for any other candidate. I would argue that someone who does not have experience in public office should not be considered a viable candidate for president of the United States, much as I believe that someone who has not driven a car before should not be considered to be a driver in the Indianapolis 500 race. I don't think it's "worth trying out" someone who has never practiced a surgery to do open heart surgery on me. I believe that a certain level of experience and track record in governance is a reasonable, basic criteria for the highest elected office in the United States. An example would be a governorship, term in congress, or a term a state legislature, something that provides a record of voting on issues that I care about, for instance - or displays some kind of governance style. Trump fails to meet this criteria. It sounds like you and I agree that Trump implies more uncertainty, the difference in our perspectives is that you are comfortable with the uncertainty and I am not. Is that a fair characterization of our positions based on this limited conversation? |
I don't find it very accurate.
It might be more accurate to say public executive : corporate executive :: public doctor : doctor with a private practice
There are plenty of real concerns that arise from the accurate version, enough that here is no need to impose an inaccurate analogy to spawn more concern than is already warranted. But the one you proposed conveniently overlooks the executive nature that is in common between Trump's previous roles and the role of a president. Much of the support for Trump has come from this notion that the polite "statesmen" of recent administrations have succeeded with manners and managing their public personas, but have failed as executives, and that the populace has suffered as a result of their executive failures. This was the driving rhetoric behind the Trump campaign. It was hatred, sure, but hatred for incompetence. And this is the criticism that the left failed to effectively address. It is the reason why they lost.
You can mask over mistakes by applying inaccurate analogies, but you won't win over your critics in doing so. In politics, that's what matters. This election cycle we found out just how much.