comment: >
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. " >
  
  
  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. >
  
  I disagree. Partly because it's hard to know for lower offices what their advisors are even saying. I don't know whether my state legislature voted that way because their advisor said so or not. Or whether it was just on a whim. And if I looked it up, I wouldn't find any answers on Google. Meanwhile I know for sure Will Smith didn't take anyone's advice at the Oscars. >
  
  so the slap is why you think celebs are too dumb? >
  
  
  As public faces, many celebrities have some unique qualifications for diplomacy and inspirational attributes of the job
  
  Can you elaborate on that? How does being a famous film star equal diplomatic or inspirational skills? >
  
  At best it means they'd convincingly be able to fake it! >
  
  True. Depends on what the person is a celebrity for, are they known for their acting prowess?   
  But also - do you want a person who has to fake being a capable leader, or someone who is actually a capable leader? >
  
  
  How not to CMV: by saying that most celebrities don't have enough knowledge to be a good politician. 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. Also saying that some celebrities would be terrible politicians is not a good argument, because that is discounting d fact that there are many who could be good politicians, or the fact that there are many non-celebrity politicians who are terrible at the jobs.
  
  Honestly, this statement goes against the spirit of this subreddit.  I personally don't think it is good practice to say in advance which trains of thoughts you refuse to entertain, especially in this case:
  First of all, your statement suggests that all advisors will say the same thing. There are many schools of thought, and it generally takes some knowledge of the subject to at least be able to dismiss a credentialed person who is giving you bad information. 
  Which makes me wonder, since most Americans are 1-2 issue voters, why wouldn't they vote for the person who represents those 1-2 issues the best, instead of a random celebrity? >
  
  People are usually encouraged on this subreddits to say how their view can and cannot be changed. Also, while I will not change my view based on that argument, I could potentially change my view about not changing my view on it. In other words, if you can show that that the most important part of making a law is not having advisors who you listen to.
  
  your statement suggests that all advisors will say the same thing.
  
  That was not my intention. In fact I would hope that they don't say the same thing. But if you are smart and ethical, if they don't say the same thing you should be able to figure out what to do given all the information from both sides. And being smart and ethical is a quality that celebrities are able to have. >
  
  To elaborate on my first point, I would first point out that it is fairly obvious that people come to conclusions about things, and some general conclusions that people come to might be common.  (i.e. to heavily paraphraze some stuff you wrote: many people think experience is important, and you think it isn't for xyz reasons). 
  However, the underlying reason people have their ideas can be different, even if they come to the same conclusion. Additionally, the rebuttals/new information that people bring forward in response to your rebuttals can also be different.  
  So, by not wanting to even entertain an argument, you are potentially shutting yourself off from new and nuanced positions that you had not considered.  
  ____
  
  That was not my intention. In fact I would hope that they don't say the same thing. But if you are smart and ethical, if they don't say the same thing you should be able to figure out what to do given all the information from both sides. And being smart and ethical is a quality that celebrities are able to have.
  
  On average, I would argue that a celebrity is likely not that smart or ethical. I don't doubt their underlying IQ per se, but I question how the circumstances in which they live will impact their understandings of the world. 
  Many celebrities are surrounded by "yes men," and are in this type of echo chamber environment from a young age. We might both agree that critical thinking will be a central component of a politicians job.  But I would ask, why should we label celebrities as generally the "right choice" for office, when they are one of the few people in society we can assume do the little critical thinking. >
  
  "the benefit of being a celebrity is that a lot of their views and history are already public knowledge." 
  This doesn't seem to be inherently true to "celebrities" as individual gather their fame from many different ways. Some that keep them more secluded and private, and some that keeps them in front of cameras daily. Mr. Beast for example, has 124 million subs on Youtube, but the nature of his videos and the fact that he keeps most of his private life unknown, means we don't know his views and personal history
  "the most important part in making the law is having advisors who know what they are doing and to listen to them"
  While I agree with you in principle, I don't think we reach the same conclusion. Yes, having very smart advisors who know what they are doing is very important, so is knowing enough about a subject that you can trust the advice you are receiving. I personally know nothing about military strategy, so if I would have no idea if the "expert" giving me advice was giving good or bad advice. That is why it's important that the elected leader already be well rounded with their own knowledge and information, so that they don't just blindly follow advice given, but use it as an additional resource.
  You've so loosely defined "celebrity" that it's going to be impossible to change your view, as the only true rebuttals would be all the things you listed in the "How to not CMV" section. However, my last point will be that you seem to be coming at this from a mindset that celebrities would make good politicians, rather than from the the opposite. Whether someone has fame prior to being elected, is neither a positive or negative towards whether they can be a good politician. >
  
  
  This doesn't seem to be inherently true to "celebrities" as individual gather their fame from many different ways.
  
  I actually thought about this when writing this post. But I came to the conclusion that in fact we do know a lot about many of them. For instance a lot of famous authors we know a lot about despite them not being as visible as actors.
  
  if I would have no idea if the "expert" giving me advice was giving good or bad advice
  
  You should have an idea if you choose someone you trust. For instance, if I don't know what to feel about questions on the ballot for my local election, and my sister tells me that I really should vote yes on one, I don't have to have a lot of knowledge about that question because I trust that she is ethical and has similar values to myself and has done the research that needs to be done to make that suggestion. But for things like military decisions, that is why you have multiple advisors. So you can listen to any possible conflicting views and make a decision then.
  
  Whether someone has fame prior to being elected, is neither a positive or negative.
  
  You were so close. I just gave a Delta for this literally a minute ago. >
  
  Yes, we know a lot about famous authors because others have dedicated their time to getting to know them, likely for purposes of writing a biography of them. I would still propose that the information we know about famous authors would be more about them as a person: childhood upbringing, literary influences, etc. than the type of knowledge that would be important to know about them politically.
  People are misguided by people they trust every single day. How many stories of financial advisors misguiding, misleading, and committing outright fraud against their clients are out there?  People are misguided by IT professionals on how to fix a computer problem, by a mechanic misdiagnosing a car issue, or by a doctor giving the wrong diagnosis of an illness or disease. These are all individuals that would be "expert advisors" in their given field, but are still prone to error. Again, if your point is they should have multiple advisors for every potential topic, I think that inherently proves they aren't fit for the job to begin with. And also again, I do still believe politicians should have expert advisors helping them. >
  
  
  I would still propose that the information we know about famous authors would be more about them as a person: childhood upbringing, literary influences, etc. than the type of knowledge that would be important to know about them politically.
  
  Maybe 10 years ago, but today with social media that is not the case. For instance, if you ask me whether JK Rowling versus Rick Riordan thought we should make a bill protecting transgender rights, I would already know the answer.
  
  if your point is they should have multiple advisors for every potential topic, I think that inherently proves they aren't fit for the job to begin with. And also again, I do still believe politicians should have expert advisors helping them.
  
  Except most politicians already do have multiple advisors. The president for instance has a whole counsel for military measures. And hold apartments that advise him. It is not the expectation to make decisions on your own, nor has it ever been. The only part you do on your own is the deciding vote. >
  
  So we can have even more nepotism? >
  
  
  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. That is the most important thing a politician can do.
  
  I agree that even experienced politicians don't know everything, and they also need to surround themselves with other experts who do.
  But here's the thing: experience helps you know what you don't know. That's the key that you're missing.
  A celebrity will, at best, have to rely on others' judgments about everything, including whose judgments they should rely on. If presented with two candidates to run the Department of Health and Human Services, how would they know which to choose? How would they know who is better qualified? They don't know what they don't know.
  Meanwhile, a politician with experience can say, "I understand X, Y, and Z about healthcare, but I don't know much about A, B, and C. But Sen. John Doe? He understands A, B, and C, and he has good connections with people 1, 2, and 3 in other agencies and departments, who can get the job done. Let's make him Secretary of HHS."
  That second-order knowledge is important. >
  
  
  know what you don't know. That's the key that you're missing
  
  This is a really interesting take. And I almost gave you a delta. But then, you wrote another sentence that changed my mind:
  
  If presented with two candidates to run the Department of Health and Human Services, how would they know which to choose?
  
  Your mistake is believing that seasoned politicians will know who to choose on their own as well. My sister works in public health, and let me tell you from what she says: they don't. The thing is when you're a politician, to do what you are saying you need to be an expert on everything, but no one can be. Now if the President of the United States were a former scientist, would that make them better qualified to choose positions such as this? Yes. But that person would also probably have little experience with the military, or with diplomacy, for instance. Now you could say that what is needed is a well-rounded person who is highly intelligent to run for office. But celebrities can be that just like normal people in this regard. Just look at Steve Martin, who is somehow an expert actor, comedian, musician, and author all at once. Or Patrick Stewart, whose compassion and intelligence seems to have no bounds. Or Whoopi Goldberg, who has to give commentary in all different issues every day. >
  
  I think that politicians with experience may still choose incorrectly despite good intentions. But I believe that they start from a much higher baseline likelihood of choosing correctly than authors, musicians, actors, etc.
  I also admit the possibility that politicians may choose based on, well, politics, even at the expense of competence. But of course, that's not to say non-politicians would do better (see also: many, many of Trump's appointments).
  Not to mention that an experienced politician will have context, perspective, wisdom, whatever, to know how much a staffing appointment is/should be driven by political factors. I.e., maybe two candidates for a given secretary post have very similar experience - in that case, maybe political factors can play a bigger role.
  Regardless of whether you give me a delta, independent of my particular example of nominating an HHS secretary, I still think that the "unknown unknowns" should really scare anyone seeking a high political office, especially the presidency. And I feel pretty confident that a politician with experience will have a higher ratio of "known unknowns" to "unknown unknowns" than a non-politician. >
  
  I think we have got to a point where both of us are speaking now out of speculation. Without more data, I think we'll have to leave the conversation as is. >
  
  That's fine, but out of curiosity, what "data" would convince you otherwise? Do you want to see more non-politicians win elected office? To me, that seems like a big risk to take just to convince yourself that lack of political experience is a good thing - is there any other industry where you would think to yourself, "Hey, we need to put more people without experience in important positions, to convince us that they can do just as good of a job as people with experience"? >
  
  But data, I me more information about whether celebrities have qualities necessary or not. But really I just meant that at first we had logical arguments, and now it is more of a judgment from both of us without additional logic. >
  
  Respectfully, I don't see how our discussion had any more or less "logic" or "speculation" than your OP. I felt like I was engaging with you on your terms, re: your point about whether a celebrity can "do the job well." I also still don't understand what data source would answer the question "whether celebrities have qualities necessary or not" to your satisfaction. >
  
  Those advisors, they usually work for or used to work for the exact companies we want regulated. How would listening to them help? This is who the right means by "Deep State" the unelected career people that watch each Republican amd Democrat go in and out, and push their agenda the entire time while getting tax money. Again, usually working for the exact company they are supposed to be regulating.
  I don't disagree with your post, but the fact that they would win is just a sign of how seriously unintelligent the American population has become. 
  Most people think charitable foundations ya know, help kids and stuff. >
  
  
  Celebrities obviously could get elected because they already have a ~~reputation~~ brand / persona. 
  
  ​
  
  And it really depends on the celebrity whether they have our interests at heart, but the benefit of being a celebrity is that a lot of their ~~views and history~~ PR is already public knowledge
  
  ​
  
  but in my mind having so much ~~knowledge~~ marketing available about them is a benefit that cancels that out.
  
  ​
  
  Now sure, some of the ~~information~~  advertising about them ~~might be~~ is wrong
  
  ​
  
  As public faces, many celebrities ~~have some unique qualifications for~~ are given specifically crafted roles to play where diplomacy and inspirational attributes of the job.
  
  ​
  
  That is the most important thing a politician can do. And I believe that many people are smart enough to do that.
  
  There is literally nothing stopping celebrities from running today. >
  
  I disagree entirely as you have created a premise which is objective. Who defines the criteria for celebrity?
  Would you say e.g. LeBron James and David Hasselhoff are celebrities? Does this label in any way suggest they have the attributes to work effectively for the people? One is good at shooting hoops, the other at low-fi tv nostalgia and getting caught drunk on camera. This is the quality of candidate? Do they understand local body politics or state and federal interplay?
  We can't all be the best we can be. Let the dancers dance and the talkers talk. >
  
  Celebrities should not run for political positions. First, as you stated, the standard for good politicians is that they "can do the job well," but is there an equivalent criterion for celebrities? How can the public validate the competence of celebrity politicians without trial and error--repeatedly trying different people to see who fits? Back in China in the 1960s, the country was ran by Mao and the Gang of Four (led by his wife, actress Jiang Qing). The aftermath was the Cultural Revolution and the complete disrepair of the country. Another flaw would be the presence celebrities in "major offices." If a standard politician wishes to climb the ladder of politics, he or she would have to begin from the lowly. Why should celebrities be the exception? Indeed, there may be some rare success at times, such as Eva Peron or Zelenskyy, but how much would that represent in the world of politics?
  Lastly, while it's true that many celebrities have good reputations, including public knowledge of their histories, this can lead to hysteria and disorder. When fervent fans start to worship their celebrities, all rationality is lost. The result would be "mob rule," which is both harmful to society and a mockery of democracy. >
  
  By nature of the role, anyone who achieves office becomes a celebrity. Everyone should be allowed to step up and represent their people.
  Your view is already the status quo. Why do you want new/change in perspectives?