I think I’ve heard this suggestion before. If we had a leaderly and charismatic secretary of state, with the global influences on American politics, and the world being as small as you’ve described, it might just as easily be the perfect route to office. What a better office to showcase how you’d run the country than sec state? I just think your sample size is too small for the conclusion. It’s more about the candidate then that particular office, imo.
It’s a sharp observation that democracy imposes a time penalty on foreign affairs; like, at that stage–diplomacy, war–it’s very serious business, and the public isn’t always going to have the a full appreciation of the sums, especially when it concerns long-term geopolitics. Despite that, there’s a public referendum every four years. So initiatives as to affairs of state have a correlation between how fast they must work and how popular they have to be. Or, third option, they must be secret.
I think I’ve heard this suggestion before. If we had a leaderly and charismatic secretary of state, with the global influences on American politics, and the world being as small as you’ve described, it might just as easily be the perfect route to office. What a better office to showcase how you’d run the country than sec state? I just think your sample size is too small for the conclusion. It’s more about the candidate then that particular office, imo.
It’s a sharp observation that democracy imposes a time penalty on foreign affairs; like, at that stage–diplomacy, war–it’s very serious business, and the public isn’t always going to have the a full appreciation of the sums, especially when it concerns long-term geopolitics. Despite that, there’s a public referendum every four years. So initiatives as to affairs of state have a correlation between how fast they must work and how popular they have to be. Or, third option, they must be secret.