I had one of those interesting waking up moments this morning where I was considering the training of attorneys and what it is they actually are trained to do. This lead me to wondering if perhaps in most cases (there can be exceptions) making an attorney a Congressman, Senator, Vice President, or President is actually a wise thing to do. I have my doubts. It was a new thought for me and was enough to make me drag myself out of bed to write this post.

This is an opinion piece. It is me exploring a new idea I started considering as I woke up. I do know that I've been skirting this idea for some time. It has been one of those things I couldn't put my finger on.

I would notice that presidents and politicians were typically really good at not actually committing to something when they wanted to, but leaving people thinking they had committed something. Things like "do you have any evidence?" followed by them saying something that basically indicates "we'll get to that in a moment" and then deflecting the discussion somewhere else and never actually getting to that. People seem to not care about that.

I have noticed for decades (For me Bob Dole running was my first adult moment of noticing it) that politicians play upon the fact that most of the population has had long term memory issues. They could say one thing that was not well received, and six months later say exactly the opposite and the populace would be fawning all over them as though what they said six months before that never happened. This is what we consider "politicians" today. Indeed convincing us of a position is a skill that lawyers train for over many years. If they are a skilled attorney then these same skills do make them very "electable". That does not mean they are a good leader. They are not trained for leadership. They do not have skills that make them have more experience at any type of leadership. It could be argued that their experience is in "interpreting the law" which many people believe is a very important skill for a President, Congressman, or Senate.

That is what we have been lead to believe. Is it actually true though? I believe in some cases it likely is, but I believe in many other cases it is potentially dangerous. They make excellent advisors, but their training is to represent a SIDE in the story to the best of their ability. They are even trained by their code of ethics to defend a side they know is wrong. Is this what we want for leaders, someone who can convince us that UP should be called DOWN? I am at the growing position where I am starting to wonder if lawyers may be a BAD CHOICE in most cases for such positions of power. I do see them as being incredibly valuable as advisory members to those positions, but being a great speaker, quick on their mental feet, and able to convince the jury does not mean they are telling us the truth. It actually means they are possibly skilled at not telling us the truth and convincing us that it is true. That would make them in reality the ultimate in propagandists.

Source: giphy.com

I am not saying that no attorney should lead us in such a position. I am saying that when such a person is running for such an office we likely should be really looking into their past. If their job has been purely as a defense attorney and they have been defending alleged violent criminals effectively then we should wonder were their clients actually innocent or was the attorney simply a really good used car salesman? There are attorneys that would be good choices. I also believe you can kind of tell when an attorney/politician is trying to sell you a load of crap. How much spin are they putting into their efforts?

Do we really want to consider people with these skills as the ones with experience? Should we not be more impressed with people that actually have lead in action, creation, and against adverse conditions, or should we be impressed with the people that are trained to tell a jury (aka you and me) what they want to hear?

Source: giphy.com

Conclusion

It is my opinion that except for rare cases an attorney is the perfect type of person for many advisory positions. This same training that makes them such a great advisor at the same time I believe potentially makes them a dangerous person to be put into an actual leadership position in government. Their training is to convince a jury that their side of an argument is the correct one. Their training is to defend their client, even if they personally believe that client is guilty. The lawyers that are good at this tend to make quite a bit of money and be prestigious. The pro bono attorney (appointed to you by the courts) typically is not the top skilled player in the field. They are also not likely to be the ones running for office. Placing someone into a position of power that is trained in speech, and skill to represent the interests of their client regardless of the actual innocence of this client is potentially a nasty thing when put into positions of actual power. They are skilled at convincing the jury that white is black, and black is white. That sounds a lot like our world today that I have started calling backwards world. I do believe this is a very valuable skill to have. It is perfect for advisors to people in positions of power. The jury is WE THE PEOPLE. The lawyers job is to convince the jury that their position is the TRUE one even if in reality it is not. The skilled lawyers are applauded for their ability to do this. When we are putting them into positions of power saying something is TRUE when it is not and convincing the population this is the case is not necessarily and admirable thing. I do believe not only the United States, but other nations is fairly top heavy with this type of politician and leadership. They are trained to tell the crowd (jury) what they want to hear and that gives them great tools to convince people to elect them to political office. In fact, it likely gives an advantage to them in most cases when they are running against someone who may simply be an honest person and not trained to SELL A CONSTRUCTED "version of the truth". In reality a Lawyer is trained to be a propagandist for the position they are HIRED to represent. I think we should be very careful when considering attorneys for such positions in the future.

Source: giphy.com

This was my food for thought this morning. I actually was thinking about Obama and many of the things I've heard him say, and how he has said them over the years. Something went click, and this idea was born. I'll be interested in your take on this. I actually was going to say many other things and give some examples, but this post is already long. Let's just consider this but the seed for this discussion.

Steem On!