From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 21:58:48 MST
Max Plumm wrote in the thread "Peace? GOTTA LOVE THOSE POLLS"
> I think it fair to say, and quite obviously, that
> he [Nixon] believed when making decisions, as I
> think is the case with most of our chief executives,
> he was acting in the best interest of the people of
> the United States.
I'm wondering how much this statement holds up to close
inspection when taken literally.
On the plus side, it occurs to me that as human beings
easily and often identify with projects, goals, and
groups much "larger" than themselves---think suicide
bomber for an extreme illustration---then it's not out
of the question by any means that this statement is
literally correct.
Yet, on the other hand, how can such behavior (in so
many cases) be distinguished from self-interest?
In the present context, wouldn't you just about give
your right arm to be able to historically eaves-drop
on conversations at the highest levels where there was
a trade-off between what was ostensibly and clearly
in the interest of the nation, and what was in the
interest of the leader and his advisors having the
discussion?
If anyone knows of particular examples, I would very
much like to hear about them.
Recently, I have listed as the *top* priority of
executives in modern democracies the object of
getting re-elected. Though true, (and I'm wondering
if I have been too cynical), it's also very likely
that the highly partisan individuals who succeed to
high office deeply believe that almost the worst
thing that could befall their nation would be to let
the political opposition start running things!
(So you see, in this case, "getting re-elected" and
"acting in the best interest of the nation" amount to
the same thing. From their perspective, of course.)
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 21:59:26 MST