| > You were making a broader point about expertise in governing many people, which I would consider as a general positive quality. I guess this also depends where you lead them. Personally I don't consider it a positive quality, I consider it a dangerous quality. > When you then reduce that expertise to what happens behind closed doors, it (to my mind) becomes explicitly about bribery and corruption. I'm sure bribery and corruption are a big part of backdoor deals, but I'm sure also some discussions which would be impossible in the public space are taking place. Could you orchestrate a coup towards a hostile regime out in the public? Could you actually state your support of gay people when in a conservative party? There are a lot of things that can't be said in public space, but must be said in private in order to advance society. I feel. > Perhaps folks with experience have more experience with that as well, but it's not germane to their general competence in dealing with groups of people. I feel it is. I've seen a new wave of politicians in my country, they rode off on the excitement of the population for a new political force, but once they managed to get an ounce of power, their holier than thou attitude made it impossible to work with them and kinda crashed them in the polls. They are still getting my vote as they're against the status-quo, but damn it I wish they were a bit more 'backroom' in some aspects. > Unless of course you think both are intertwined in a way that cannot be separated. In that case we just disagree. This is actually where I stand. I am also considering the historical context of my country where in more totalitarian times, a bit of backroom dealing managed to create some form of space for revolution to happen. Disagreement is healthy and I thank you for stating your views clearly. I hope I managed to do the same. |