This may have been more true during the times of nobility. With modern democracies and market economies, we at least try to have some form of meritocracy. Obviously, we fall short in a lot of ways, but the goal is to bring to best to the fore.
I think both authors can be correct, and both sets of experiences are valid. But I think it's a sign that politics selects for political-competency, which has nearly nothing to do with general intelligence or other forms of competency/expertise.
In Athens, they selected by random lot. A much better system.
IIRC, an important corollary to that was they designed their official positions so literally anyone could do the job. That would also have certain benefits regarding oversight, because with simple jobs anyone can check if they're being done correctly (without corruption or incompetence being hidden behind jargon).
lolol
2016 version of Bernie Sanders; Jimmy Carter; Dennis Kucinich; and almost any politician willing to stand up against needless wars, as avoiding war is a top priority for me.
A competent system would be preferable.
Grant was also known for his unlacquered honesty. And for his desire to serve the nation. Whereas Lincoln changed opinions when favorable to him and was happy to suspend rule of law for the same reason.
Compared to whom and what?
What was the standard to which you decided they should be measured against that led to your conclusion?
Growth is exactly what the UK economy needs and she recognised that. Now all we're going to get is austerity, higher taxes and misery under Rishi