Why aren’t defeated American Presidential candidates snapped up by other nations?

Here’s a conundrum: in a ratio of 500:28, Hillary Clinton was endorsed by our smartest citizens (journalists, editors, and publishers) as the best qualified person, out of more than 325 million, to lead the United States government. After November 2016, however, she didn’t have any pressing job responsibilities and her family foundation was also winding down. Why wouldn’t a country of 5 or 10 million have tried to persuade her to come over and be their leader? From a statistical point of view, assuming equal intelligence and education levels, it is unlikely that a country of 10 million would have a better person available than someone who was #1 out of 325 million.

We could ask the same question about Mitt Romney, John Kerry, Carly Fiorina, Al Gore, Sarah Palin, Bernie Sanders, et al. These folks rose pretty close to the top in the American electoral system, so tens of millions of people thought that they had tremendous abilities. Why aren’t they sought-after by smaller countries as leaders?

17 thoughts on “Why aren’t defeated American Presidential candidates snapped up by other nations?

  1. Albert Einstein, a Jew but not an Israeli citizen, was offered the presidency in 1952[4] but turned it down, stating “I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Israel

    • Well, he was a Socialist so he decided not to bother with the reality of people, which was a good decision on his part, because frankly he didn’t know anything at all about it.

  2. Any thoughts on crashes and grounding of Boeing 737 Max 7 & 8 planes? How do they manage to fly OK most of the time but crush suddenly without wear/tear?

  3. This is a Good Question but it has no hope of being answered. I like it for the sheer audacity, but you forgot Jimmy Carter. He could take over for Maduro.

  4. In fact, why doesn’t Hillary run for President of Haiti at the express invitation of the current Haitian President and legislature? Surely they could amend their Constitution to allow her to run if that is currently prohibited? Think of the benefits for Haiti: she’s sitting out the 2020 election, and Haiti is a skipping record of a disaster that really needs someone competent who can guarantee a huge influx of aid money from the United States. She should step up and be counted.

    Hillary for Haiti!

  5. Look, the reality of life is that the “elite” of each country want people that they can control “leading” their country. The elite want leaders that are beholden to that country’s elite so that the status quo (which benefits the current elite) is unchanged. You see this type of behavior in every large organization, not just countries.

    Someone like Hillary would immediately bring in their own people and take over the country to the detriment of the current elite. Why would any existing elite bring in someone from outside that they could not control? You have to think about this question from a Machiavellian standpoint.

    And then there’s the reality that you’re likely getting at… none of the folks including most of the actual recent Presidential winners are exceptional in any merit-based way.

  6. I agree especially with your last paragraph. I lived in New Jersey, and I know Donald pretty well. His sister is more exceptional than he is, by a lot.

  7. Super intelligence and political wiles don’t translate to different jurisdictions just because. Ask yourself:

    Would you move the current governor of Nevada to the same office in New Jersey? Could you just rotate all the governors around? Obviously all the voters thought these were the best choices for their state.

    Now on a purely American basis, at least those governors all speak the language and know the broad strokes of American culture. So translate Hillary to Haiti. Even if the Hatian people open-heartedly wanted her, she’d have to deal with other elected officials with their own programs, desires, and cultural worldview. It would be a disaster; I doubt much would get done.

    On the other hand, why not take the presidents of every major company and shuffle them one seat to the right? Prez of HP goes to Boeing; Prez of Boeing to Kellog’s. It makes about as much sense.

    • Super-intelligence does translate to different jurisdictions as confirmed by foreign scientists making mega $$$ in foreign capitalist countries or given top positions in socialist countries. So does political intelligence. Foreign lord / local vassal had been quite common type of political arrangement.

  8. An utterly bizarre question. By this logic the US should accept failed politicians from India and China (since they have greater populations than US).

    Most countries don’t want politicians from other countries interfering with their own politics. They have enough useless politicians of their own and don’t want failures from other countries!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.