comment: >
  
  
  But let's be honest, no one person is qualified all on their own to do everything that the country has to do. So for military and legislative purposes, the most important thing is to simply be smart enough to hire good advisors and to listen to them.
  
  Experience at lower offices is a good way to tell if that's what they'll actually do. If you're in lower office, and listen to reasonable people and enact good ideas, that's a good indication. If you come from nowhere it's not possible to know.
context: /u/Square-Dragonfruit76 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  When you phrase it as "celebrities should run" all we know about them is that they are celebrity.  Unless you'd also say "plumbers should run" or "teachers should run" because...well....there is absolutely no connection between being a celebrity (or a plumber or a teacher) and being able to be an effective legislator.  
  So...you'd be better to say that being celebrity should not disqualify you from running, but it's not sufficient.  You yourself go on to say that they need to be smart enough to hire good advisors and listen to them.  If the plumber is also that then the only advantage the celebrity has is capacity to win the election because of recognition.  That's not a meaningful difference and we all implicitly suspect that the unknown plumber who is smart enough and can hire good advisors would lose to the celebrity who lacks those qualifications.  
  The cons are that "celebrity" creates electability in the absence of actual qualifications.  Anyone without qualifications should not be elected to office. >
  
  
  you'd be better to say that being celebrity should not disqualify you from running
  
  !Delta you're right. This is mainly in response to people who say that celebrities shouldn't run and is also showing that the negatives of electing celebrities are counteracted by positives. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/iamintheforest (216∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  
  So for military and legislative purposes, the most important thing is to simply be smart enough to hire good advisors and to listen to them. That is the most important thing a politician can do. And I believe that many people are smart enough to do that. 
  
  This isn't enough. The politicians themselves need to be able to understand and operate the levers of government. 
  When you hire a CEO, you don't just look for the best possible manager, you want someone with deep industry knowledge with the ability to form strong perspectives and opinions on the direction of the company. Otherwise, you might end up with a discordant, inefficient mess.
  Same thing with a politician. The non-public role of politicians is analogous to that of a manager and a good manager absolutely should hire competent people with knowledge and skills they lack. However, a good manager should also be able to understand the effects of decisions suggested by their advisors, and be able to demand suggestions for alternative courses of action if the effects of the original suggestions do not fall within within their broader vision. >
  
  
  The politicians themselves need to be able to understand and operate the levers of government. 
  
  Why?
  
  When you hire a CEO, you don't just look for the best possible manager, you want someone with deep industry knowledge
  
  This is untrue. Often CEOs are hired for their executive skills without having experience in the industry.
  
  a good manager should also be able to understand the effects of decisions suggested by their advisors, and be able to demand suggestions for alternative courses of action if the effects of the original suggestions do not fall within within their broader vision.
  
  Sure, but couldn't any person who is smart and understands US (or whatever country) laws at an intermediate level do this? If not, why not? >
  
  
  This is untrue. Often CEOs are hired for their executive skills without having experience in the industry.
  
  Which is generally a mistake unless it's a company in a novel market and/or it's a company in a space that is easily understood. Politics is neither. 
  Usually, companies like to hire management within the same general field, even if it's not the same exact product. Phillips 66 might hire the CEO of Halliburton, even though they work in different market segments, but they probably won't hire the CEO of Walmart or Microsoft, even if they are excellent general managers.
  
  Sure, but couldn't any person who is smart and understands US (or whatever country) laws at an intermediate level do this? If not, why not?
  
  To a limit. Politics is a lot more complicated than what you might learn in high school government. There is a lot of complexity in just the legislative and executive process before you even get into the minutiae of policy. Chiefs-of-staff can help bridge this, but the politician shouldn't just be a figurehead for the chief-of staff.
  Like CEOs and other managers, politicians need vision informed by reality. They might be able to engineer that anyway by having long information and discussion sessions with their advisors to iron out what policy goals they can actually achieve. That's extremely inefficient though and allows too much space for advisors to disagree with each other rather than with the politician.
  It makes more sense for the manager to lay out a realistic, mostly consistent set of well-considered policy goals and have their area-specific specialists tweak them and work out the details. >
  
  
  As I already said, the most important part in making the law is having advisors who know what they are doing and to listen to them.
  
  So why don't we just elect those advisors and cut out the middle man? >
  
  1) You need to be able to make judgments about what they advise and synthesize it with information with from other advisors. If I have one person who says we should nuke another country and here's why, and another person say no we shouldn't, and here's why, then there needs to be a person who looks at the reasoning from both and makes a decision.
  2) Many top scientists are not good at public relations. Just look at Fauci. On multiple occasions people found him confusing and sometimes untrustworthy. Does that mean he was a bad scientist? No. But he didn't sign up for him being a public face. >
  
  
  You need to be able to make judgments about what they advise and synthesize it with information with from other advisors
  
  So now you've moved the goalposts to say that celebrities need wisdom, to make said appropriate judgments. And for that matter, what about being a celebrity causes them to develop that wisdom? >
  
  1) Reagan was a celebrity, Got the vote, but it is still unclear if he was able to do the job.
  2) Trump was a celebrity, got the vote, did not have our interests at heart, was unable to do the job.
  3) Schwarzenegger was a celebrity, got the vote, California was happy with him, did a decent job.
  4) there was a governor who had been a professional wrestler, but I don't know his story.
  From my view that's 2 out of 3 is bad from experience. >
  
  Yeah that is way too small a simple size to judge. I could list other effective ones too. Zelenskyy comes to mind first. >
  
  Well, I guess for me then, I don't want 'celebrity' status to be the deciding factor, because I don't think you can judge skill based on current popularity. A year ago, Musk would have had a good run, but now the 'crazy' is showing. 
  For me, being competent, nuanced, etc, along with humble enough to take good advice is the best. Only that hasn't been an option for most of my life. >
  
  So would you suggest banning celebrities from running then? Also, if I'm not already a celebrity you have the problem of not knowing nothing about them from the beginning. In my mind, it's better to know about them and risk being proven wrong then it is to know little from the start. >
  
  I am simply saying that I don't believe that there is a correlation between social media recognition and the capacity to lead. Banning is a stretch as I would vote for Sam Harris in a heartbeat. The reason being is that, even though he has strong opinions, he spends hours on his podcast trying to get at the root of the matter, where-as Joe Rogan does not.
  Their fame is not the qualifying factor. I repeat "being competent, nuanced, etc, along with humble enough to take good advice is the best. "