Better Than Average

I have been thinking recently about a conversation I had with S ages ago. I'm sure the conversation came about because we were talking about old George Dubya and the morons who voted for him. In particular what we were discussing is his mass appeal as the 'Everyman'. And what we both agreed on without any debate is that in general, without exception, we both expect that the elected leader of any group should always be BETTER than average.

I was reminded of this conversation by two things. First, the media hubbub over the admission by Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy that he has an alcohol problem. And second, a forwarded email from this guy I knew in St. Louis about the criminal records of congressmen. Which leads to the problematic position of whether you hold someone accountable for their wrongs in perpetuity or you allow people their past mistakes.

Certainly, no one is perfect. And where we to expect any political leader to be pristine and clean from birth to election, there would be no political leader to elect. Still, where does one draw the line on forgivable to unforgivable? And when does an illness or a mistake or simple shear stupidity make someone ineligible for leadership, if ever?

I suppose this is particularly ponderous for me as I come from a place where all children are taught that they can 'be anything they want to be' and generally I think this is a good thing. But should we just allow that some people should NOT be allowed to do certain things? In a way we already do this with the mentally impaired or others with physical disabilities that prohibit them from a given job, though they are often found fighting for their right to an equal opportunity. It's a difficult subject to come to a firm answer on.

Still, back to Dubya, I really never want a fucking C student as the leader of the free world. That's just stupid.