Philosophers can make great politicians (See: Marc Aurel). Philosophers don't necessarily make good showmen, and that's what politicians in western, two-party democracies need to be.

I still consider voting for him in 1992 a high point and would do it again in context.

Possibly not the optimal choice, but hey: "Die with your boots on."

Sounds like it was a team failure. The PR people should have advertised Stockdale's qualities more and let him be himself.

I thought Stockdale was a bad choice because of age and he just seemed distant and unengaged. If that's because of the hearing loss, I don't know. I doubt Seneca was a humble, bystander.

Disclaimer: I voted for Perot/Stockdale.

>Sounds like it was a team failure. The PR people should have advertised Stockdale's qualities more and let him be himself

Sounds like the failure of a political culture. Politics shouldn't have PR people.

Wait, think that through.

Why should politics not have people whose entire job is to manage public relations?

This is an interesting comment, because I get both respect and unhappiness for Stockdale from it.

Are you saying - he should have played the game more, but you respect that he didn't? or are you saying he should have known the game that he was playing and thus played it better?

You are thrown off because I tried to make positive statement and everything is interpreted as normative in the internet.

positive vs. normative statements.

positive: opinion about what is, the state of the world.

normative: what ought to be. a value judgment.

Fair enough, it was an interesting comment the way I read it though; makes me think about all the things I complain about where I am complaining about “the rules of the game” - like in a job or something.

I picked to play that game, if the rules are whatever playing that game are using, then if I am frustrated by the rules, am I not the one who should look in the mirror and say “hmm, maybe I shouldn’t play this specific game”