[ggm]

There is an amazing write up[0] of somebody who was present when Boris gave some apparently "impromptu" speeches who absolutely pins him to the ground on his technique for appearing haphazard, off-the-cuff when it's patently clear its a rehearsed schtick. The man is literate.

The problem is he is also almost amoral, and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities, and he has some deeply unpleasant ones. (at least, from what I know of him from reading online, having never met him in the flesh)

[0]: "My Boris Johnson Story" by Jeremy Vine: https://spectator.com/article/my-boris-johnson-story/

[dotancohen]

  > and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities

This is quite the contradiction in a democracy. Democracies, at least in modern indirect democracy form, are popularity contests.

I personally prefer this form of government over other popular choices. But ignoring this aspect is exactly what leads to unqualified people being elected to office.

[Arkhaine_kupo]

> This is quite the contradiction in a democracy.

Is it?

I get that being charming and literally convincing voters it a prerequisite for the job. However the idea that even despite having those qualities there are parts of his character that should disqualify him as a candidate seem equally plausible.

Charles Manson was very charming, but he should still not hold office.

Similarly, Obama or Mamdani being charming is not what gained them interest in progressive circles.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

To add to this, I've read accounts that US Presidents suddenly needed to be charismatic to compete meaningfully after the debates started being televised. So even being charming had not always helped one win public office.

I recall a story about Calvin Coolidge, who had earned the nicname "Cool Cal" for his standoffish attitude, about a dinner party he attended. Another guest bet him they could get him to say three words to them by the time the party was over. He didn't say anything in response, then found them at the end of the party and said, "You lose."

[specialist]

Campaigns, for sure, are more marketing than discourse. Their infinitesimal silver lining is they serve as a veneer of social proof, their outcomes represent (to some) a form of legitimacy.

From monarchs to pure direct democracy, decisions have to be made. But how?

I see "government" as a kind of consensus algorithm. Policy work, adjudicating, record keeping, legislating, appropriations, etc. It's all just one big data processing machine, trying to discern signal from noise (information), hopefully learning stuff (knowledge), and occasionally acting.

For all our history, we've experimented with strategies for reducing transaction costs. Building trust, predictability, and stability.

How do you think we've done so far?

IMHO: Government, and especially bureaucracy, ain't great. But the alternative of no government isn't acceptable.

[dotancohen]

  > How do you think we've done so far?

Not so bad, all things considered.

[aswegs8]

https://archive.is/WGJJO

[gumby]

Every time I encounter this story I read it again because it’s so great

[ndsipa_pomu]

I agree that he should never have been given any power or responsibility, but he was bizarrely one of the best PMs we've had for promoting active infrastructure (i.e. cycle lanes). He was probably more progressive than Kid Starver.

[mdp2021]

> literate

There is form and there is content. Poor content is more dangerous with alluring form. Some declared having witnessed a bewildering scientific ignorance ("He can't understand data representations").

[gherkinnn]

What a thrilling read!