Devin Danehy: Presidential Qualities To Look For

It is possible that the average American voter has elected some suspect people the last few years. We may have elected some individuals that are dishonest or narcissistic or selfish or ignorant or a combination of some these unfortunate human characteristics. The best evidence of this are the “Unfavorable” ratings that these same voters have given Congress and the Executive branches of government.

So what does history and human nature experiences tell us about what qualities we might look for in a Presidential or other important office candidate.
How about:

1. Willingness to hear opposing points of view and in fact demand that they be heard. History shows that some of the most damaging decisions in history occurred in a “Group Think” scenario where “Devil’s Advocate” positions were never brought to the forefront and in fact opposing views were deemphasized in the chemistry of that particular group. Of course, President Lincoln is a famous example of appointing many of his political enemies as advisors to ensure just this decision making capability. It can be argued that the worse governments, sports teams, or any other band of human beings probably were exhibiting “Group Think” behavior.

2. Life experiences that caused pain and adversity. This may seem somewhat harsh in nature, but some say that “nobody respects the flame like the fool that has been badly burned”. It is probably fair to say that individuals that have experienced tremendous adversity in their life also have a better chance to develop qualities like comparison, forgiveness, humility, and mental toughness. The human existence is still a very challenging experience for most humans on the planet. To understand this “quest for survival” is to be able to better empathize with other parts of the world, a key aspect for leadership success.

3. A person who truly is a decent person. Francois De La Rochefoucauld said that “Decency is the least of all laws, but yet it is the law which is most strictly observed.” Of course, Human Decency, is difficult to define but may simply be a code of ethics that most humans understand innately because it is “right”. In my opinion, there is no other human characteristic that commands the respect of others more than this quality. A President that can command that type of respect is someone that may have a chance to be very effective in a leadership position.

4. The characteristic that fits the times. Of course, there are hundreds and thousands of other important characteristics that we might want from our leaders; however, we could use some luck to match the need with the talent. So, if we think that a pragmatic, compromising leader is important in 2008 to 2016 that is who we should vote for. The key problem might be that we really won’t know until after those people are elected. Luck is always a factor.

And as an aside, these characteristics might actually be something to look for in friends, spouses, employees, and neighbors.

Devin Danehy

Devin Danehy Writes: Pete Rose And “The Ban”--- Add Argument #10

1.) Several Hall of Fame Members have been convicted of crimes that are currently in the Hall of Fame.

2.) There is no evidence that Pete ever bet against his own team. By the way, it is too bad that some players are not forced to do that---- they might play a little harder.

3.) There is no evidence that Pete ever bet as a player.

4.) The Hall of Fame “ban” for Pete was directed at him as a player vs. a manager which is illogical.

5.) Pete Rose is broadly viewed as a key contributor to the success of MLB in the 70’s, baseball’s “Hey Day”.

6.) Pete Rose arguably has a gambling disorder which is clinical in nature similar to drug problems. Hundreds of MLB players have used illegal drugs, allowed to enter rehab, and subsequently re-enter MLB.

7.) Pete Rose was one of the most hated players of his time because of his ruthless, competitive nature. The “ban” on Pete Rose is laced with “payback” from many of the Baseball Establishment from that era.

8.) There is no evidence that Pete Rose’s behavior ever caused “harm” to MLB.

9.) Pete Rose is largely being punished for his lack of candor (i.e. lying), which although vigilante justice, really has nothing to do with the relevant facts.

10.) No reasonable person could argue to ban Pete Rose when dozens if not hundreds of MLB players are not banned from the sport while grossly impacting the integrity of the game through illegal and banned performance enhancing drugs

I do not know Pete Rose nor am I a Pete Rose fanatic, but as a relatively unbiased sports fan, the “powers that be” need to get in the real world and operate with a little more justice.