Good Judgment

The December 17th issue of Time had some interesting statistics on voters. When asked the “most important quality” for a candidate, Democrats picked “good judgment” 33% of the time, and Republicans picked it 21%. The other choices were caring about people, leadership, character, and experience.

Does it bother you that good judgment wasn’t the top choice for three-quarters of all voters?

Obviously experience doesn’t help if you have bad judgment. But a person with good judgment would consult with people who have experience. Clearly, judgment is more important than experience.

Character is important in exactly the same sense that good health is important. You need a minimum of both to be a suitable president. But the bar isn’t set that high for either health or character. You can have polio, or be a liar, or a philanderer, and it doesn’t seem to have much impact on job performance. All of the current candidates have enough character, and enough health, for the job.

Leadership and caring about people are touchy-feely concepts that have little correlation with presidential job performance. Obviously you don’t want a wimp or a sociopath in the office, but again, the bar is set low. All of the current candidates clear it with room to spare.

Clearly, good judgment should be the most important quality in a president. But how often do you hear someone say that a candidate “has good judgment”? How about never?

I was thinking about this because someone forwarded me a link to a web site that is trying to draft Michael Bloomberg for president. http://www.uniteformike.com/. You would think the strongest quality a successful business person has to offer is good judgment. In most cases, if you start with a little money, and end up with a lot, you have to make a lot of good decisions along the way. But the site promoting Bloomberg doesn’t mention his decision-making skills because everyone knows voters aren’t influenced by that sort of thing.

Does that worry you?

Comments

[Justin M]

Nice great post thanks alot!!!!

[Michael Adams]

I rather like Mr. Thompson, precisely because of his judgment. When the interviewer asks him a question, he puts his fingertips together, thinks a moment, and gives a very good, lawyerly response. If the moderator thinks that this might trigger a descent into "mine is better than yours is," I will not be offended if you strike the name and insert ellipses. Do you notice that the percentage of people who list judgment first is very close to the percentage of people with an IQ above one ten? Allow four percent for emotional responses, and you are exactly there. Hmmm.

[Johann]

Splunge!

[Hank]

Wait, _this_ Bloomberg?

"... this from Bloomberg yesterday, by "a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations," ... Certainly this is a classic:

The whole subprime problem can be seen as a consequence of too few prices and too many deals in the first place. The price of a standard fixed-rate mortgage is too high for many families, even at today's historically low rates. The appeal of the adjustable-rate loan, never mind that of the subprime no-doc mortgage, lay precisely in that it allowed borrowers to fool themselves about the true price of the debt they were assuming.

You can, apparently, be a senior fellow of something having to do with "economics" and not realize that "loan amount" is one of the variables in =PMT. I fault the educational system: too much economic history, too little Excel....
------end excerpt-------

[Hank]

Wrong comic, it's Doonesbury discussing God Judgment in politicians right now.

[stor perde]

perde
perde
mefru?att
perde
projeksiyon perdesi
motorlu perde
stor perde
tül perde
temizlik
temizlik şirketi
ofis temizliği
ev temizliği
şirket temizliği
jaluzi perde

[fddgdgfdd]

fdfdfdfdfdf ddgfdfddfd gfdfgfdgfdgdgfdgfd

[Noah Vaile]

What worries me is that anyone thinks that Bloomberg has good judgement and is a viable candidate for any elective office including the one he bought. New Yorkers, both city and state (City State?) have notoriously awful judgement and almost always elect at best poorly qualified candidates, at worst utterly corrupt slime that look well in suits, pantsuits included.
So if there are any questions about judgement one only needs to consider the current crop of New York politicos and one swiftly comes to the conclusion that they all epitomize bad judgement: both their own and that of New York State voters.

[Allen Anderson]

In determining who to vote for, I think most people consider all the factors in deciding. For example, what is we elected a president with good judgement, yet doesn't care about people. Obviously, I'd prefer a president whose actions are for my well being (even if he has terrible judgement), instead of a president who had good, yet sadistic judgement. Honestly, both would make terrible presidents. But I would probably vote for a president who has mediocre judgement, if his ideology was similar to mine.

[Joshua Jacobsen]

Well, Good Judgment sounds like a great quality, but at the risk of being contrary, let me suggest the following:

The best decision in the world -- a little too late -- is worth less than a mediocre decision made right on time.

That's not a "high quality" mindset, but I know that Scott Adams is a proponent of "good enough" and could appreciate the point.

Also... I believe that sticking to a plan -- even a mediocre one -- is better than starting over again and again with "better" plans. Bush has almost dissuaded me from that position, but I still kinda respect the ideology of making a decision and following through with it until it's done.

[Andrew MacRae]

For starters, I want to say that the two people below me are not "Andrew MacRae" as they claim to be. They may be andrew macraes, but I'm the blogger from http://www.UniteForMike.com

Anyway, what I wondering is how many of you actually vote? From the comments I'd think that alot of you are disenfranchised from the whole voting process. America is in an awful quagmire right now, it's called Washington D.C. and we really need to do something different before we collapse from within or are taken over by china. I'm not asking you to agree that Mike will solve every possible problem, what I am asking is that you at least stand up and recognize how awful the country is being managed under a two-party rule. Mike Bloomberg is a rallying point for people sick of politics as usual - I encourage you to meet us there.

[Peter Johnston]

What worries me more is that equally few could name the people in teams behind presidential candidates, never mind how they stand on key issues. Would anyone have voted for Bush if they knew they would get Rumsfeld?
Secondly no-one complains about their judgement but everyone complains about their memory...

[Avi]

This is the same as to when those who send a candidate only care if he wins and not is he good ?
He might be the best for the nation but he won't win. For we all know that the masses as ASSES.

[Mark]

A president doesn't have to have good judgment, because presidents (or prime ministers for that matter) rarely make the decision themselves. Usually the advisers and cabinet members make the technical decisions and the President just signs it. I mean, look at recent American presidents. Reagan didn't know much about anything (he was an actor), Clinton didn't exactly have an hands-on-experience in either health, transport, science, development.... you get the picture. Presidents often don't know much - they just sign, sign and sign. I would say that in the US or even in my country, Australia, the cabinet members and advisers have more real power than the President. Yet its the President who gets blamed for bad policy.

[Draft Michael Bloomberg]

People are ready for change. There is no better time than now for a third party candidate... especially one that can fund their own billion dollar campaign.

http://www.runmikerun.com/

.

[D. Mented]

I don't really like any candidate I've seen so far, and would like to add my "hear hear!" to the comments that people with sense no longer run for president.
I'd like to draft Lou Dobbs, with Will Smith for vice.
Dobbs because he's aware of the economic situation as it is today and doesn't think another war would fix things, and Smith because I like his acting roles better than I liked any of Reagan's (which seemed to be the reason people voted for him so...)(Smith as vice would get to run for president later claiming expirience)
D. Mented (and tired of being serious, as it doesn't seem to help)

[Assclown]

Saying "integrity" seems like just a form of personal puffery: "Look at me, I believe integrity is important, so you can trust ME. *I* don't cheat on my wife or do drugs or spill my seed on the barren plain, there's nothing sketchy about me... I SWEAR."

-Meanwhile, you don't mind if the president is a dimwit, a moron, out of touch with reality, or deluded into believing God has chosen HIM to hasten The Rapture.

...I'll take "good judgement" for $100, Alex

[John Elliot]

I think they're all vague nonsense. Good judgment could be taken to subsume all of the other characteristics, or not.

However I don't expect "good judgment" to be important to people, when they are participating in a popularity contest where someone that most of them know practically nothing about is selected as the head of the executive branch of a country with so much destructive potential based upon party affiliation and what they look like.

As to drafting businessmen for leadership positions I'll pass. Unless you invest in restaurants, after you have accumulated a certain amount of wealth, it's not surprising that it continues to grow. It's an expected outcome of a winner-takes-all feedback loop. If you feel the need to be ruled over by the firm hand of Michael Bloomberg I'm sure the two of you could work out some sort of relationship, though I don't think he swings that way.

[T-boy]

Being fairly inarticulate, I like to quote others. Here is a great quote that applies well to the election of a president or any representative. It gives a slightly different perspective from those of derek and wernman:

"Hire and promote first on the basis of integrity; second, motivation; third, capacity; fourth, understanding; fifth, knowledge; and last and least, experience. Without integrity, motivation is dangerous; without motivation, capacity is impotent; without capacity, understanding is limited; without understanding, knowledge is meaningless; without knowledge, experience is blind. Experience is easy to provide and quickly put to good use by people with all the other qualities." - Dee Hocks

Which of our candidates has the highest integrity?

And I don't disqualify a candidate who has changed his mind over the years. As Muhammad Ali once said, "A man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life."

[GR Mark]

> We are obviously
> thrilled that you and your readers are interested in
> results-oriented government - instead of the same old
> pandering BS

Results-oriented government. God help us all.

Stalin got results. Mao got results.

I like divided government that yammers a lot and panders and then is mostly harmless. Except, of course, for the tremendous, earth-shattering expense that comes from not actually MEASURING results or actually caring what something costs.

Most of humanity currently lives under results-oriented government.
I prefer the panderers who burn money for the fun of it, and they throw better parties.

[adora]

This is why democracy isn't the best policy.

What people *say* they want and what they actually choose are very different. Most of us don't know why the hell we choose what we chose. The reasons are often made up to make it sound like we aren't that stupid. Eventually, we are most likely to vote on grounds of likability.

Studies have shown that most people prefer the item on the our right side even when it is presented along an identical item to the left. http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/12/what-we-dont-know-about-shopping.php
(Yes, moist robot program has a glitch...)

Well, it is still disturbing to know that most people don't even consider saying "Good Judgment" is the most important quality.

[RPK]

The problem here is that there is no one definition of 'good judgement'. It's sort of like pornography, we can't define it, but we know it when we see it. And what you might think of as good judgement would be considered terrible by someone else.

Republicans probably think that the Supreme Court showed good judgement in stopping the vote recount in Florida after the 2000 election. The state of Florida had no standards as to what contituted a vote, so how could you recount?

Democrats see this as horrible judgement. The court stopped the democratic process and 'gave' the election to GWB. So the same event can be seen as good or bad, depending on your viewpoint.

I think others have expressed a good idea, anyone who really wants to be President should be disqualified. Being President should be like jury duty. Something that no one wants to do, but it's our civic responsibility to serve once in a while.

[LJP]

They must have polled an unusually intelligent group of people to get that result. Either that, or the poll is faulty. It's a basic fact of statistics that only 16% of the population are brighter-than-average. Therefore, only about 16% of the respondents SHOULD have chosen "good judgment". So, the poll isn't what worries me. What worries me is that our next president will be elected by a majority consisting chiefly of dullards and underachievers!

[Stomper]

Eh, if you have enough experience, that can compensate for a lack of good judgment. You only have to exercise your judgment when (1) it is time to make a decision, and (2) your experience doesn't tell you which way to go. Obama will have to have extremely good judgment, because his experience is so limited.

History shows us that good business skills don't equal good political, military or diplomatic skills. They don't even equal good economic skills -- often because the business leader sees the economy through the highly distorted lens of his or her own business field.

Demonstrated good judgment in business does not equal good judgment in any other field. The kind of experience you get in business leaves you to make a lot of judgment calls when you venture into another field.

--Stomper

[Jeffrey Ellis]

Excellent point. And it's because in general, Americans themselves don't have particularly stellar judgment. If they did, the survey results would have come out to 80% or 90%.

[Pam]

I think you make a really good point.

[Ron Paul for President]

Ron Paul for President in 2008! He's better than all the other Republicans, and he's not Hillary!

[BrianH]

I find it interesting that you would say that its obvious that "good judgement" is the most important quality in a president.

I think in his or her advisors, sure. The single most important quality, to me, in a presidential candidate is integrity.

[obiDonWan]

I find your faith in polls touching.

[John]

Strap in, I think we're all going to die.

http://awritersblock.com

[AJ]

it has been said by many people the most notable that i can think of is Douglas Adams (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) those who most seek power are ipso-facto those most unsuited to wield it (so who do you get to run things when when one who wants to can be allowed to)
so what we need to do is to take a poll of all the people in the US who would like to be president and then evict them from the country or be banned from running for office at least (I'm in the UK this rule would apply here to the Prime Minister) and then hold an election with everybody else who wouldn't really want to be but thought it was there duty to do it

[Neal]

While I'm sure I won't be the only one with this point of view in these comments already, if a presidential candidate possessed good judgment, would they decide to run for president in the first place?

[Kevin Kunreuther]

[But the site promoting Bloomberg doesn’t mention his decision-making skills because everyone knows voters aren’t influenced by that sort of thing.

Does that worry you?]

I'm worried about every one of the current characters running for President.

People who are good at making decisions about running a business and amassing capital are not necessarily good at making decisions about governing people's lives. A CEO's responsibility is to the shareholders. A lot of those decisions involve securing maximum profit anyway possible, without getting arrested or fired.

Democratically elected Presidents have more oversight, tons of input from advisors, checks and balances to rein in .... oh, wait a minute, too late, might as well forego the process and swear in Bloomberg now.

[Edwin]

Does it worry me? Yes an no. The worrying bit is that someone who is mainly selected on his good looks, his pleasant voice as well as his ability to hire some good marketing specialists will pretty much have his finger at the button to detonate a few nuclear weapons. Then again, after George W, the next president can only be an improvement. Maybe you should remove the dead horse from dilbert and suggest him to be president. At least he will not make any mistakes ...

[tao]

Hunter S. Thompson used to compare seeking the Presidency with a bull elk in rut. The elk will run over anything, even leave pieces of his hide behind on the bark of a tree, in that intense, mad focus to reach the object of his desire.

I think when you want the Presidency THAT badly, that, in and of itself, is the greatest disqualification for the job. There's too much power in it for a megalomaniac. Better to have someone who is actually reluctant to run, but feels he/she is compelled to do so out of an overriding public interest. There are few of those out there. Ron Paul MIGHT be one, but that remains to be seen.

[wernman]

I agree it's disturbing, but I think it comes under character. Character is a strong positive indicator of good judgement. And it DOES have a huge impact on job performance. After the Africa Embassey bombings & the US Cole incident, the Intel community found Bin Laden three times and offered him to take him out if CLinton would give the order. But Clinton & his staff were too involved managing the fall out from the Lewinsky thing to deal with national security. We're still paying the price for that blunder.

So character affects job performance, and indicates good judgement.

[Enough Wealth]

Unfortunately having "good judgement" is like having "luck" - a retrospective attribute. You can't really tell if anyone had it until they're dead. For example, does the twenty-year old lottery winner have "luck"? What if they get hit by a bus the next day?

Your successful businessperson may appear to have "good judgement", but if they start WWIII when they're president then history would probably decide that they had "bad judgement" overall. Also, lots of businesses thrive under a CEO, but the next business run by that CEO tanks. Judgement isn't necessarily transferrable - what worked well in one situation may not work at all in the next.

Regards
http://enoughwealth.com

[yes]

Great way to plug for Mike, trying to make it look like just a random musing.

[WCE]

"Does that worry you?"

Not in the least, but my personal feeling is that the Mayan calendar was optimistic about us making it to 2012.

[Chris]

>> These countries became rich and powerful through the
>> operation of large and small capitalist organisations which,
>> as some of you may have noticed, are *not* run as
>> democracies.

> Actually, they are run *exactly* like democracies. Each
> shareholder gets a vote. When the CEO does a lousy job,
> the shareholders vote him out, assuming they are paying
> attention, which they often are not.

Well, not quite. Each share gets a vote, not each shareholder. Rich shareholders get extra power in proportion to their wealth; those with the smallest investment get the least say in what happens. Those with no investment get no say.

[indo]

Scottie, your cartoon strip over the last few days about flogging the dead horse... Absolutely CLASSIC!!!!!!! :-D

[Andy Watt]

Over here in the UK we're havnig a big debate about our party leaders and their capabilities, especially in terms of "leadership" and all the touchy feely crap you mention.

The leader of the conservatives (not currently in office) is an ex-PR man called David Cameron, who has impressed everybody with his speeches but who is constantly badgered for his total lack of substantive belief in anything apart from the widest most non-controversial ideals like "the environment" or "law and order".

Mean while we're badgering our current encumbent government about new weekly revelations regarding lost personal data and their farcical idea of electronic ID cards - a clear attack on their leadership skills.

In the UK we now have the politics we deserve. We've been valuing the leadership skills of lawyers and slick PR people, all of whom aspire to political careers (and whose judgement in getting to the top of the political heap can't be faulted - they are there, after all), by voting for the idiots for the last 20 years.

Net result - when bad judgment occurs in UK politics, we now have a supposedly media-savvy executive culture (following Tony Blair, of course) where ministers responsible pop up and "apologise" for the most monumental f*** ups, offering us excuses which only make them appear more useless (the Japanese have got that right - they do apologise, but don't make excuses) and then they don't go on to do anything substantive - that gets reported, anyway!

It seems the our political elite are now so inbred that their judgement and experience (especially real-world) are very low in the list of talents compared to the touchy-feely crap in the rest of that list of traits.

[RavenBlack]

"Does that worry you?"

It bothers me, but it's been the way for so long it'd be like worrying about cars being a major cause of death and injury and yet so prevalent. Which, er, I do, which is why I don't drive, so that wasn't a very good analogy for the purpose of explaining why I'm not worried.

Jesse Ventura was the best potential 'twist' presidential candidate, way more likely to have had a chance than Mike, but he made the first step into government and then basically quit because it sucks. That's the sort of person I want as a leader, but will never get. (That said, if I ever find myself with enough money to run for office and advertise sufficiently to make a dent, I might do it precisely because nobody does. Though I don't know what would happen if I got in, what do you do if you're a leader who actually wants to make things better for people?)

[magwai]

Our current leader in the UK, Gordon Brown, seems to have started on a course which is giving the impression of him having bad judgement. It is quite scary to think what disaster he will cause next.

So yes, you are completely right.

[RML]

The most important quality of a US president is the ability to find funds for his/her campaign. Being rich enough to have lots of "friends" helps.

[Mastro Gippo]

They're watching you...
http://www.uniteformike.com/2007/12/17/draft-mike-bloomberg-president/author-of-dilbert-scott-adams-is-a-fan-of-unite-for-mike/

[DML]

I'm not sure if someone who got rich on wall street has good judgment or is just very lucky. Either quality would be nice to have in a President though.

[Fred]

I wanna be like Mike.

He would probably do a better job than of those other clowns.

[derek]

When looking for any employee, you want him to have 3 things: competence, work ethic, and honesty. If he doesn't have the last one, you better hope to hell he doesn't have the first two either.

Good judgement comes under the first part, and is easily the most important "competence" related skill. However, if he is lazy or dishonest, his good judgement will either amount to nothing or be used in a bad way. As you explained very eloquently in your first non-dilbert book, when 2 things must happen, neither is more important than the other. To have a good president, he must have good judgement and good values by which to judge. It is impossible to say one is more important because both are necessary.

If his values are getting himself and/or his friends richer and he has good judgement, he might even invade a country which isn't a threat so that Halliburton can make money. Hence why Dick cheny, thought chock full of good judgement, would be a terrible president.

[Marxist]

The more i think about any election in US, This game pops into mind:
http://www.telltalegames.com/samandmax/lincolnmustdie

[car free since '93]

Wow! All your blogposts are back!
CFS '93

[Matilda]

Ron Paul's name still stays absent from Scott's blog. Why is this? Why does Scott Adams ignore a real candidate like Ron Paul who supports the Constitution and instead gives his support to some millionaire, dead horse candidate?

[Cyrus Uible]

It absolutely worries me that judgment isn't a factor. I personally am quite interested in Bloomberg and hope that we get to hear more about him...if he runs of course.

Cyrus
http://ChristmasEveryWeek.com
(still giving away stuff for free with no strings attached)

[Cyrus Uible]

It absolutely worries me that judgment isn't a factor. I personally am quite interested in Bloomberg and hope that we get to hear more about him...if he runs of course.

Cyrus
http://ChristmasEveryWeek.com
(still giving away stuff for free with no strings attached)

[Mokkery]

[Does it bother you that good judgment wasn’t the top choice for three-quarters of all voters?]

Nope. What bothers me is that I’m not part of the three-quarter majority. I have to live amongst these people.

[Nobuddy]

In most cases, the only quality a voter cares about in a candidate is that "s/he is/thinks/believes like me." And since most voters are by definition average, and the average person had no clue...

[jerry w.]

When you're running for the office of president, you have to show intelligence,

campaign with true class, radiate warmth, demonstrate your bravery,

and above all prove your concern for the common people.

Once you can fake all that, you're in office.

.............................

Off subject (how rare), but B.T.W.,

The only one with the balls to call for impeachment is Dennis Kucinich.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[Spence]

Every Business Mitt Romney has ever touched has turned to gold, I'd say that's good judgment.

[Joe]

To be a President you have to be willing to work with Politicians. Good judgement across all issues is unlikley in anyone, especially someone who is 1) willing to work with politicians, 2) enough of a campaigner to beat all the other politicians to the top. The amount of effort going into these things I think reduces the amount of effort put into understanding less important issues like environment, well being, economics and when/when not ot declare war on smaller nations.

[CH]

Good judgement as in fashion sense?

[Quantum_Flux]

Good judgement is the key to success, but it mainly comes from trial and error or seeking the councel of those whom have experience. I suppose there is also a philosophy element to it as well, but philosophies are like assholes.... "Everyone's got one, and they all stink!"

Education, which is distinct from philosophy, doesn't hurt the judgement, because that is merely delving into a database of recorded trial and errors throughout the centuries (scientific method), and pulling out a plum (theory that works).

[Jorge]

Good judgement in a candidate? It seem s that now this can only apply to clothes. ;)

[Cassi]

But if someone has good judgement, and bad character, does that mean they apply their judgement towards bad motives, and thus do them *well*?

[hma]

I'm worried about my hallucination that you think that quality of a decision can be measured from the amount of money it generates. Surely you would not think that e.g. decision to sell led painted toys is a good decision (this example has nothing to do with Bloomberg).

[phaser]

Actually, corporations are perfectly not democratic. It is not true that "each shareholder gets a vote". In fact, each shareholder gets a number of votes equal to the number of shares they own. Therefore, the Chairman of the
Board, who is usually the largest shareholder, gets the most votes. Or, put another way, his/her vote far outweighs that of the average joe/jane stockholder. The more money you have the more vote you get. It is generally pretty difficult for the average shareholders to unite into a bloc big enough to oust a board member.

Now, as to "good judgment" - It would seem that the voters would have to exercise good judgment in order to elect a candidate based on his/her good judgment. Obviously, that hasn't been the case in quite some time, and the poll only proves the point. And character does figure into judgment, but only as far as people care about that either. Everyone pretty much knew that Clinton couldn't keep his pecker in his pants, which would lead one to believe that his judgment was suspect. But, he got elected anyway (twice). That part of his judgment seemed to matter less than his political judgment. Everyone knew that W is an idiot, which would lead one to believe that his judgment is suspect. It didn't seem to matter (twice).

[ShakeAndBake]

People don't value good judgment? Hell, we got worse problems than that.

We're continually told that a certain candidate is a "frontrunner," but there are only two reasons:

1 -- She has a vagina.
2 -- A former President occasionally uses this particular vagina when he runs low on interns.

Wow! I'm very impressed!

[KD]

How could a voter with bad judgement have the judgement to vote for someone with good judgement?

[DWH]

I have a pulse and good blood pressure to boot;maybe I should run for president of the USA!

[Darth Geoff]

Yeah, but for all the hoopla about the President, the job description is two things: accept or reject bills from Congress, and accept or reject suggestions from the Chiefs of Staff about military decisions. The rest is just politics. So what you'd be looking for is a President whose decision-making skills were better than the cumulative abilities of all the people who contributed to the laws or the military actions in the first place. If he was that smart he'd be doing the work, not just approving or rejecting them. So the President is really just the biggest PHB in the world.

[Esn]

>Actually, they are run *exactly* like democracies. Each
>shareholder gets a vote. When the CEO does a lousy job, the
>shareholders vote him out, assuming they are paying
>attention, which they often are not.

Yeah, corporations are "like democracies" - democracies where the worth of your vote directly depends on how rich you are.

I don't know about your world, Chris Farrell, but in my world we call that kind of thing a "plutocracy".

[Lymonhead]

The current President has poor judgment. And the people had bad judgment who elected him. That is, maybe except for the oil tycoons who he was in bed with. Hopefully the experience that came from the bad judgment of supposedly electing him (or maybe not) will lead people to choose someone with good judgment this time around. Unfortunately, I think people go with whichever candidate is the most articulate and/or attractive (in reverse order now in the TV era) while good judgment is a much better choice.

If I only knew then what I know now...

[Real Live Girl]

Good judgment normally scores a lot of points with intelligent, industrious, accountable, generous people. Unfortunately, we're out numbered.

[Ben]

I'm not sure that a President uses judgement in any important way on a regular basis. With certain exceptions, his job is to be a figure for people to rally around, an image to present to the rest of the world, and to be Commander in Chief. A lot of people would blame Bush for going to war in Iraq, for example, but he didn't do it by himself - he had a lot of people around him reinforcing and enabling his decisions. Any unpopular decision he makes in isolation is irrelevant without the leadership and charisma to bring others around to his way of thinking. (and the popular choices happen whether he wants them to or not)

Look at the great Presidents in history and what they're considered great because of - they weren't unpopular decisions, at least not where it really counted. But major events like the Revolutionary War, Civil War, Great Depression and so on required someone the country could look to and be inspired by.

So yeah, "character" (defined as "someone whose morals align with mine, pretty much") to want the right things, and "leadership" (the appearance, speaking voice, and personal skills) to make them happen, are probably of greatest importance.

[Chris Farrell]

Oh, and by the way:

> These countries became rich and powerful through the
> operation of large and small capitalist organisations which,
> as some of you may have noticed, are *not* run as
> democracies.

Actually, they are run *exactly* like democracies. Each shareholder gets a vote. When the CEO does a lousy job, the shareholders vote him out, assuming they are paying attention, which they often are not.

The large companies that have had the most catastrophic failures are the ones that were the least democratic: the ones where the CEO was also the Chairman of the Board, the ones where the voting stock is all controlled by a founding family and so leadership is not accountable, or the ones with poor records of accounting transparency. This doesn't mean that small, undemocratic companies can't succeed through the visionary leadership of a dictatorial individual, but if you want to be large and successful over the long term, you need a democratic structure.

[tubaguy]

We've been doing fine with bad judgment for 220 years now. Why change?

[Tim Martin]

How about "Doesn't take bribes?"

[Chris Farrell]

This is a deeper topic than I think your glib (but funny) little bit would suggest.

For example, what elected office to you think might be a total no-brainer to have "good judgment" as a top qualification? How about judges? It's right there in the name.

But these days people don't elect judges based on their judgment. They want either a) people who they know exactly how they will answer some classes of questions, regardless of the surrounding circumstances; or b) someone who will pretend to just "call balls and strikes" and not actually make judgments, but evaluate facts.

But judges are there, 99% of the time, to sort out complicated legal questions where the law is ambiguous or unclear, and the facts of the case are extraordinary or murky. To extend the baseball analogy, they're there because sometimes the ball is right on the corner and it's impossible to tell whether it's a ball or a strike, given that you can't use instant replay and a micrometer.

Ideally, you want a judge who, when presented with unclear laws and ambiguous facts, will juggle these many, many conflicting factors in a way that is fair. i.e., someone with good judgment.

But where judges are elected, this is increasingly not how it is done. Judges advertise based on how they would decide large classes of cases before seeing any facts. Judges push judicial philosophies like "strict constructionist" around as if they were meaningful, when they know that if it were easy or even possible to just read the statutes or the Constitution and robotically figure these things out, they wouldn't be needed in the first place. Those robot judges on Star Trek never work out well.

What we want, and need, is good judgment. I'm not suggesting that they should make it up as they go; I'm just saying when the law is vague and unclear, you want someone who can make use their best judgment.

But that's not what we're getting. More and more, we're getting ideologues.

But really, how do you measure good judgment? You come up with a metric, and your problem will be solved. As pointed out, the "tons of money" thing doesn't cut it.

[Andrew MacRae]

My question for all of you is why do you sit here and complain instead of doing something about it? If you think most Americans are apathetic and make poor choices, then you yourselves should become more engaged. If you are interested in Mike Bloomberg I encourage you to get involved in this effort. Share your stories with Unite For Mike or through your own blog.

[Joe]

This doesn't worry me. You see, if everybody eventually succeeds in convincing Bloomberg to run for president, they will have proven that he doesn't have good judgment.

In what way will Michael Bloomberg's life be improved if he should choose to run for president? You have to concede that he is highly unlikely to win. Campaigning is a tremendous pain in the ass. It would cost him an incredible amount of time and his own money. The expected value for his ROI would probably be deeply in the red. I'm not saying he doesn't have a chance, but the odds are so heavily against him as to make it an unsound investment choice

So, if Michael Bloomberg has good judgment, he won't run for president. If he should choose to run for president, we suddenly wouldn't want him to win, because he doesn't have good judgment, which is about the only category in which we thought he was better than the other candidates.

[Drew]

Alp said "good judgment comes from experience...
experience comes from bad judgment."

I can't help but be torn by that statement. Yeah, bad judgment leads to bad experiences which HOPEFULLY lead to wisdom (like the ability to say "I sure as hell won't do THAT again"). But It is my line of thought that some people can just sniff out a good or bad situation, almost like a sixth sense.

Conversly, let's look at what Scott says of himself- 9 times out of ten there is failure. I would say that someone with good judgment would not screw up that often, but then that begs the question: Does having good judgment mean that you only succeed?

Now I am even more confused.

And I still don't like any of the candidates.

[David Jakes]

No, it doesn't bother me much because you've already convinced me that who I want for president doesn't matter becasue my vote doesn't matter. I'm trying to concentrate on improving my judgement, something I still have some hope of influencing.

[Biff]

Local political ads always portray the candidate as an experienced leader and a church-going family man. The only time I have seen judgment used in a political campaign is against an opponent. I assume the reason for this is that on the local scale, where your opponent might know where you live, you can't attack someone's character, so they need something to fill the gap between leadership and experience.

"Perhaps the other 79% do care about the presidents' judgment, but realize that the president is a puppet of the party, and doesn't actually have to exercise that judgment... therefore, it's not the most important."
The candidate has to have enough judgment to not do crazy-ass things that are against his party. But that sets the bar low, which is a good thing for the current president.

[brian]

as a regular subscriber to Time magazine i have a certain level of confidence in the results of their surveys.

"Does it bother you that good judgment wasn’t the top choice for three-quarters of all voters?

bother me? yes. Suprise me? no.
look who you voted in the last time.

he was voted in because he was a committed christian then he went of and killed hundreds of thousands of people.

[John Stauffer]

Our political leaders are the ultimate expression of the 'talking head' concept - governing from a script with apperance trumping content.
So why worry about decision making ability?
Their party and related special interest groups (excuse me, community based supporters - special interests are only involved with the opposition party candidate) setting course.

[John Stauffer]

Our political leaders are the ultimate expression of the 'talking head' concept - governing from a script with apperance trumping content.
So why worry about decision making ability?
Their party and related special interest groups (excuse me, community based supporters - special interests are only involved with the opposition party candidate) setting course.

[98 percent]

I think that i wrote 'spel' instead of spell. Kill me as an example ;)

[GeraldNZ]

I totally disagree. Stalin and Mao had fabulously good judgement when it came to establishing and maintaining their own power. They just happened to be evil/mad/misguided on economics, etc. So, goodwill toward the people is more important than good judgement - there are plenty of highly-paid advisors to provide the "judgement" element.

To be fair, it's not clear what the question means. Obviously an ideal president will have some of all of these qualities. What does it mean to say that a candidate has a bit more of this and a bit more of that? Also, the number of situations that could be faced by a president are infinitely variable, and some qualities are more important at certain times than others.

[0ccam]

I believe that "good judgement" and "running for President" are contradictory ideas.

I suppose they could be qualified with "good judgement for a President" which sets the baseline pretty low.

No one in their right mind would -want- to be President. Only megalomaniacs would actually -want- that job.

Thus the best person for the job will never willingly run for it.

[98 percent]

@Chris
Yup, undeducated, uninterested idiots who can't spell 'nuclear'. Vox populi vox dei.

[Borjan]

Yes, it does.

[synapticmisfires]

Of course this worries me. Given how weak the dollar is, fleeing to another country just keeps getting more and more expensive.

As Dante and Randall once said in the movie Clerks:
"But you hate people"
"And yet, I love gatherings."
My feelings exactly.

[Arby]

It is tough to pick a candidate to support from the current political spectrum. Mostly information about them is biased, partisan propaganda. Looking at the voting record is often deceptive as it doesn’t tell how they will vote of future issues that may or may not be similar to the previous votes.

So what do you do? One way is to prioritize their views on current issues in the campaign and see where the candidates stand. What areas are most important to the voter? I have chose one area that is vital to the future of this country and am looking for the candidate that best fits that need. Others may have issues that they think are most important.

Still have not found the right candidate yet but am looking closer as the election draws near. I am but one voice in the wilderness but at least I try to be informed and have strong feelings for what our next President deems important.

http://gosolarpower.blogspot.com

[Andrew MacRae]

Scott, thanks so much for the link. We are obviously thrilled that you and your readers are interested in results-oriented government - instead of the same old pandering BS

[Peter W]

Actually, you may need to be a bit of a sociopath to be a successful president - especially in times of war. Here is a theoretical explanation - http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.mealey.html - about why sociopathy (?) confers evolutionary advantage on the species. Of course, if you view Intelligent Design as a viable alternative to evolution, you may have to accept that the Designer may also have been something of a sociopath.

[Thank you for not blogging]

Bag blog.

[Alexander Dietz]

"But how often do you hear someone say that a candidate 'has good judgment'? How about never?"

Barack Obama has actually made it a big part of his message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=000iY6EbQc0

[Mr. Wampus]

Tell me that you will lower my taxes,
that you will make the economy better and gas cheaper.

Tell me that you will make me safer,
that the "war on terror" is actually winable
and extremism in all it's forms will be crushed.
(including right here at home)

Tell me that global warming is within our ability to control, and that you will actually DO SOMETHING about it.

Tell me that the current mortgage crisis is just a bubble,
(like the housing boom) and that it will resolve itself
quickly without any lasting effects.

Tell me that you'll balance the budget, make quality health care affordable for all, and quit pandering to spcial
interests that don't really need a handout from the
government but get it anyway.

Tell me that the reason you want to be the president is
because you believe in the people and not because you want
to get paid a million bucks a speech after your term is up.

Tell me you'll work with congress (both parties) to pass laws that benefit everyone and not resort to petty partisan
bickering.

Tell me you don't care about your "legacy." Tell me you care
about the country and its people.

I'll believe you.

And then I'll vote.

[Erik]

It's a moot point. Since when were moist robots capable of good judgement?

[Owen]

you forget that not many voters have "good judgment"

[David]

Did the article say what percentage of swing voters prize good judgment or did Time only poll voters whio identify with a Party? I bet judgment would be higher among the swingers. Although I do find that swing voters (at least the ones who take the time to vote consistently) tend to be split along these lines: 60% crazy loons. 30% dedicated and engaged citizens. 10% incumbent haters.

[Sir Mike Tallon]

If good judgment was at all related to who we chose for president, Bush would never have stepped foot in the Oval Office. He has a lot of bad judgment and bad experience and not even .0001 inch of silver lining.

[Jake]

But wasn't it you in one of your books that mentioned that the tallest candidate with good hair always wins? Isn't it weird that if only Mitt Romney's hair were Christian instead of Mormon, he'd be the front runner.

I find it so ironic that anyone would think that Mormonism is any more goofy or crazy than regular ol' Christianity.

And I find it just plain scary that the relevant choices were good judgment, caring about people, leadership, character, and experience.

Yo, dumbasses: every consider "intelligence" as a nifty quality that might be useful?

Doomed are ye and we.

[E]

Scott,

I agree with you on this one... the only catch would be:

How do we define or measure "good judgment?"

Two thoughts.

1) You could probably apply the same criteria to "judgment" here as you do to the other things... you might not like or agree with policies, etc... but all of these folks can look at an issue, make a reasonably sound decision and articulate why. Does that count as good judgment? How good is good enough?

2) I'm trying to imagine my pointing to someone demonstrating exceptional judgment, and in any context I can think of, it ties to my assumptions about what is good, or best.

Since people disagree about what "best" is (take abortion as an example) it seems like you could have two people making decisions that are fundamentally opposed and having their respective camps nodding and pointing to both as an example of "good judgment."

- It is best that we protect the sanctity of human life, even in the face of serious consequences.
- It is best that we protect our freedom, when the issue at hand isn't a "life" yet.

I can understand both arguments, but both can't be "best" related to abortion. And smarter people than me land on each side.

That we're so sharply divided on fundamental issues of this sort bothers me more.

But yes, definite red flag there. If you would vote, you could move the needle by some non-zero fraction of a percent.

[Dana]

I absolutely agree with you, and am concerned about the judgment of our current administration as well as those we will have in the future. There are a couple of things at play here:
1. Candidates have to do things to get elected that have nothing to do with their ability to govern or administer effectively. There are many factions to pander to, and they all wield voting power. This is probably why flip-flopping has become so popular.
2. The popular vote is a scary thing because there are so many people in this nation who vote who are so very different from me and vote based on things that are just dumb (affability, endorsement from Oprah, and other irrelevant things). Unfortunately the world is populated by a lot of in-duh-viduals who vote.
3. The electoral college system is even scarier than the popular vote. Witness the 2000 election (and 2004 as well) as examples.
4. Good judgement, in and of itself, is not sufficient. How it is applied is very important. There are those who would argue that W shows good judgment in forcing other countries to behave like ours. How that judgment is applied to real-life situations is what really matters.

Since you are so good at looking at the other side of the coin and arguing for it, I would like to see you take the opposite side of this post and see if you can support the notion that having "good judgment" is not important in a president. Are you up to the challenge?

[Hmm...]

Those who demonstrate good judgment in making money, can only be expected to just continue making themselves more money when elected. Why do you expect they will suddenly start caring for you?

Besides, it is naive to assume that good money-making skill leads to good governance skill. Exactly the fallacy made by people who elect their rich movie stars or body-builders.

[Dan W.]

I don't agree at all. Good judgment, first of all, is just as nebuluous a concept as leadership. You could easily say that you only need enough good judgment to follow the advice of people who are smarter or who have more data than you do.

Character is by far more important. I don't know what the use would be of knowing the right thing to do if you don't care about the consequences to your fellow citizens.

Clinton probably knew that the right thing to do with respect to the Lewinsky situation was to come clean and ask for forgiveness. Instead he chose to divert the public's attention by bombing some places none of us had ever been to or heard of.

[Lari Telaranta]

All those other qualities (experience, character, leadership, etc.) can be measured without much of an effort.

But how do you measure good judgment? All presidential candidates have made good decisions earlier regarding their career, otherwise they wouldn't be candidates, right?

How can you know which candidate has the best judgment?

That is the question.

[Captn Rob]

Hmmm... Hmmm....“Ooo-aah-mumble-agh.”

That being said....

I like the saying... " None of us is as dumb as all of us." I think that just about says it all.

[Fubar]

Anyone willing to run for the office of the President of the United States clearly lacks any measurable amount of good judgement.

[midnight]

If any of the candidates had good judgment, they wouldn't be running for president.
If they had experience being president, they couldn't run for office.
If they actually cared about people, they would be working for a charity.
If they had leadership, they wouldn't be hiring campaign manager, image managers, and pollsters.

All those 'characteristics' are just ways of lying to the American people. He who does the best job, and doesn't get caught, wins!

[zippy]

I have hallucinated that you said you support a pummeled dead horse for president, and I am now going to mock you for my hallucination: Ha! A dead horse may have good judgment, but look at his hair! What a fool you are not to support Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, or at least Ron Paul in a Reagan wig!

[Bob]

I stopped worrying about this long ago. The single top requirement seems to be "Nut job Evangelical" now.

All hail President Huckabee!

I blame home schooling. And the Amish, who are laregely responsible for home schooling.

[E Whitaker]

Even in the case of a successful business person such as Bloomberg, we should be critical of 'good judgment.' This is fiscal, or bureaucratic good judgment that is based on what Max Weber would call formal rational (unconcerned with human consequences). Even 'good judgment' in this sense can be (and is often) entirely ignorant of ecological and social outcomes. I would like to see Americans concerned with having candidates that display a commitment to justice and tolerance, not the ability to make decisions that benefit their personal objectives and the objectives of lobbyists.

[Sean]

But I bet 80% of Democrats would vote for the quality "Democrat", and the same goes for Republicans.

[Greg]

Um, Barack Obama has been using the "good judgment" argument explicitly, especially to counter the experience question. Hell, he even has this address set up as part of his web site:

http://www.barackobama.com/judgment

There you can read his 2002 speech against the war, back when it was very politically unpopular to be against it. There's also an interview somewhere on YouTube that shows him in 2002 or 2003 opposing the Iraq war, and for the right reasons. He was bringing up Sunnis and Shia back when most people, including those in congress, had no concept of Iraqi society at all.

Sorry if this post sounds like an overt plug for him, but Barack Obama has in fact been making the good judgment argument for some time.

[Jaxim]

What do you think of Ron Paul?

[Jim P]

Thankfully, we live in a system of government where the people don't choose a president; that task is left to the Supreme Court. ;-)

[Sam Thornton]

Worried? No. Because I know that Scott's next post will build on this one to prove beyond doubt that cartoonists make the best leaders.

[Jim P]

Thankfully, we live in a system of government where the people don't choose a president; that task is left to the Supreme Court. ;-)

[Dan]

I remember G. Bush saying that something to the effect that his job was to get good people who in turn would provide him with a set of options that he could choose from. Isn't that basicly saying that he whould provide the "good judgement?" So did he fail in his judgment part or the hiring part?

[Rick]

"Does that worry you?"

Not as much as the thought that you've grafted opposable thumbs onto your hands and learned to type.

[Adam]

I have the good judgement not to let it worry me.

[GLK]

I refuse to worry about anything, because worry is fruitless and gets us nowhere except into an early grave. If indeed a bunch of idiots run this country into the ground there isn't a damn thing any of us worrywarts are going to do about it, except delude ourselves into believing that a show of concern somehow makes us important. Get over it, it doesn't. Historically most great societies started going downhill after 200 years anyway. So the hell with it, live like a politician and make as much money as you can working the system, then party at Stacy's (or wherever it is you like to eat & drink) and have a good time while it lasts. The future is completely out of our hands. That’s why smart people don't vote, right Scott?

[AJ]

The problem with this question is the wording of the options.
We all know what "experience" or "leadership" means, but what does "good judgement" mean?

It's completely subjective. Does it mean the candidate agrees with YOUR judgement? Does it mean that they are good at quickly deciding something, but not necessarily the choice you would have made? Can a "good judgement" be reversed in the face of new evidence, or is that "wish washy" behavior?

I mean, Bush has clearly made some very strong judgements in his 2 terms. Would you call them good judgements?

[Dilbert's Rabbi]

"Is good judgment important?" I think that's a rhetorical question. I wouldn't put it at the top of my list because I assume that people who are candidates for President have already proven good judgment.

For instance, when George Bush ran the first time, he had already been elected twice as a Governor of Texas. I have never questioned his judgment... or his intelligence.

I have also never questioned his ability to be articulate. He has clearly demonstrated he is NOT articulate.

[Nick]

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Sir Winston Churchill

[rita mae]

Does THAT worry me? Why not? Everything else does.
Thanks for asking.

Rita Mae

PS Do I get something for my shortest post ever?

[Sondra]

not worry, so much as dismay

[DF]

Was lucky one of the options? Good judgement seems like a quy that says "Hey, this worked last time, I'll try it again." That is the Bush theory of thinking, since invading Afghanistan worked, let's try invading Iraq. I would want a lucky president, someone to say, "Let's put a cow in every car and run them on their methane" and have it work beyond belief. Someone who goes for the longshot and has it pay off for 4 years. The president that says, "They are building nukes to us against us in DurkaDurkastan", then have the army walk in, foil the plot, and find all the proof needed sitting on the coffee table in plain sight. Good judgement is fine, but is normally preceeded by bad judgement. The next president need to know when to hold em, when to fold em, know when to walk away, and know when to run.

[Tom]

Life is hard. Luck is much more important.

[Diana W]

Yes, I'm worried. Very worried. On the other hand, that explains a lot about how our currrent President got elected.

Here's a question - can you have good judgement without intelligence? There are plenty of people who prove you can be smart and make terrible choices, but can you have good judgement without first being smart. In other words, can a dumb person have the instincts to consistently make good choices? I ask because Intelligence didn't make the list of qualities.

[dsg]

People probably don't list good judgment because the candidates don't mention it. Candidates don't want to be measured by such a subjective standard. Every decision a politician makes could be considered a judgment. Incumbent Senators never win because of their voting records, a list of judgments effecting the nation to be criticized. Governors seem to do better because their past judgments haven't effected the national populace.

I think business men who don't make the comparison between I make good business judgments therefore I can run the country are making the right choice. No matter what business you were in or how big a company it was, it is nothing like running a large national government. I fear any candidate who says they will run government like a business. I don't want my government trying to make a profit off me. Business and government are two very different entities with very different goals.

[Peter Boysen]

I'm not totally sure that I agree with you on the issue of character. After all, "good" is relative, in that good judgement on an individual level can make a person rich at the gross expense of hundreds or thousands of other people. That's not exactly bursting with character.

[argenbert]

William Smith has a point. good judgment means (give or take) effective thinking, but it doesn't say anything about the goals of the thinker.

although it is true that a well-meaning idiots can do as much damage as sociopaths, i think that the first category are easier to control.

maybe good judgment IS the most important trait, but i wouldn't put the bar for caring about people too low.

[QwkDrw]

Yes, and compliments to you with your contributor for selecting a good topic.

Of course a nation's leaders need "good judgement".

This 75% tolerance for leaders making bad choices might be a projection of our evolved society onto a leader "person" -- love the person and hate the sin. I vote that a nation's leaders should be accountable, perhaps with an election every couple of years
??
GIVE ME A MOMENT a lifestyle

[Adrian Rodriguez]

Well, I think the best candidate is a Dead Horse, yes Sir, he can take a beating and ignore you at the same time.
Top that candidates!
Dead Horse-2008! Ay Caramba

-Adryan

[Chris]

This is indeed depressing, but hardly surprising. Democracy may be the least awful system of government we've yet devised, but it's still pretty bad. The governments of all the world's richest and most powerful nations are chosen by "the people", 98% of whom are uneducated, uninterested idiots. You wouldn't leave them in charge of your goldfish, so why expect them to choose wisely when deciding who should be in charge of their enormous nukular arsenals?

These countries became rich and powerful through the operation of large and small capitalist organisations which, as some of you may have noticed, are *not* run as democracies.

QED.

[Alp]

good judgment comes from experience...
experience comes from bad judgment.

[JoNa]

What's worse is that those who voted for good judgment probably only did so because, "a nice smile and good hair" was not among the choices.

[Karmadrome]

When I worked for a company whose name I will respectfully decline to name, our IT department motto, decided up by our CIO, was "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die." Charge of the Light Brigade. Classic stuff, and inspiring too, unless you happen to have read the poem and realize that they didn't "do", they were slaughtered to a man.

The moral? Great leadership combined with poor judgement is one of the quickest ways to really screw something up.

[Hovie]

People either do not want candidates making subjective decisions -- they want candidates to make objective choices based on facts -- or they want loyalty to the party line.

The clue for me was that more Democrats selected good judgment more often than Republicans. Democrats today are more amenable to the "wise king" or "benevolent dictator" theory of governance (where a government of very smart people or one very smart ruler can make wise decisions for all "the people").

The GOP does not want government making choices for them. Moderate Republicans want choices to be made objectively based on data, and extreme ones want choices to be made based either on fixed moral codes (i.e., the Bible) or on loyalty to the party platform. This is roughly the same for the Dems, except that they do not have the "fixed moral codes" part, so this is replaced by the group that believe in the "good judgment" of benevolent dictators.

[disembodied consciousness]

How important is good judgement in a president really? If the president had to choose very often among several hard-to-evaluate paths, then good judgement would be important. But the choices faced by a president are usually pretty simple.

What to do about global warming: damage industrial production and profitability at home where your voters are, or drown Bangladesh? Now really, how hard is this decision? And you see, leaders all over the world make the same decision. Except in Bangladesh.

What to do about Iraq (I had an irrational desire to type iRaq. Too many i words): Exercise military muscles which were in need of a good workout, and prove your daddy was a wuss, or negotiate with a sociopath. OK, I'll admit that better judgement would have helped here. It's the exception that proves the rule.

But seriously, the president doesn't make that many tough calls. They just look tough if you foolishly overload the decisions with ethical considerations.

Being a career politician, the president knows how silly that is. He makes the decision that's good for the voters who elected him, not the "right" or "just" decision. All presidential candidates are extremely good at this. It's only by accident that they make the "right" choice. So grow up.

[Debi]

Yes, it's one among many things about voters that worry me.

[Joe Canuck]

But what is good judgement? Is it that quality that leads one to make the right decision most of the time in the absence of a complete set of data? How is that distinguishable from luck?

Maybe Americans should be attempting to choose the luckiest candidate. ;-)

[Shaun H.]

I don't know about states side, but in Canada we want our politicians to lie to us to make us feel better, just so long as long as the economy is good and we can afford our polluting SUVs. Of course, politicians have little control over the economy, so we're stupid on all accounts.

[wrench]

Ha,
Making lots of money in business does not good judgment make. The two leading candidates, Clinton and Guilani both have made loads of money in business but by using opportunities of position, I beleive the Dilbertian phrase is "by being weasels." Good judgment is all but impossible to determine in todays politics, which is why we voters toss it out the window and use other more quantifiable factors to determine voting preference.