Political Peter Principle

Recently, I tried to explain the Peter Principle to a 24-year-old. It hasn’t been talked about in a long time, so maybe it’s time to dust it off and take a look again.

Why? I look around and every institution is failing under the leadership of inept people.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Wikipedia explains,

The Peter Principle is a belief that, in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization’s members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, “employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence.” In more formal parlance, the effect could be stated as: employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot continue to work competently. It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous [1] treatise, which also introduced the “salutary science of hierarchiology.”

In the 70s the theory got a lot of attention then faded. We need to look at it again. Can anyone seriously argue that incompetents are not in control of this country?

Our leader, Barack Obama, had no governing experience. Heck, he didn’t even have enough experience to be elected a senator, coming from a state house where he failed to do anything substantive except vote present. That was bad enough. Then he got boosted to leader of the free world, a post he had absolutely no training for, no experience in, nothing to merit earning the top spot in the land.

But don’t worry about that. His No. 2 is even more incompetent. When Joe Biden was selected vice president, our side felt this assured an Obama defeat. Biden can’t go two feet without sticking one foot into his mouth. He’s been like that since the days when he plagiarized British politician Neil Kinnock’s speech and pretended it was his own. Since his first election it’s been a banana peel ride of bloopers for Biden.

The rest are pretty obvious, too. Hillary Clinton couldn’t make it to president, but she got way beyond her abilities in secretary of state. She can’t even lie well as proved by the Benghazi fiasco. David Petraeus at the CIA? Sorry, you’re way above your pay grade, soldier. Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security chief refuses to acknowledge terrorism plays a role in much of anything. Neither does Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who had to be told by Diane Sawyer of a terrorist plot thwarted in London. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner couldn’t even prepare his own income tax return.

Now we have talk of Vogue editor Anna Wintour as a U.S. ambassador. Could I make my point any better? A Vogue fashionista known for her completely undiplomatic yet autocratic way with people, she seems the least suited of anyone for that post. Her temper is so bad she is referred to as “Nuclear Wintour.”

Looks like this is payback from a grateful Michelle Obama who has benefited from glamorous shots in Vogue that helped shape her into an acceptable First Lady. Michelle is another one hoisted to a spot beyond her abilities. In Illinois she had her law license suspended – we don’t know why. She mostly sat on boards to receive outrageous amounts of money she didn’t earn. She has no education in nutrition or exercise, yet sets herself up as America’s trainer in chief.

But those in charge aren’t just happy flailing away themselves; they want you to, too. Otherwise why would they be pushing so hard for a tax situation that seeks to deter citizens from having a successful business? Obama isn’t just seeking more revenue for the country or he would have accepted John Boehner’s offer of equal revenue through tightening loopholes. No. Obama wants to punish the wealthy with higher taxes. He will either run them out of the country, force them into early retirements or deter them from increasing business because of higher tax rates. There shall no longer be American exceptionalism.

There is one addendum to this current Peter Principle. These people are not only inept, they are programmed to fail. It’s part of another late 60s-early 70s strategy, the Cloward and Piven one. If you don’t know what it is, google it. Suffice it to say these people want to collapse the system.

Feel any better about our leadership with four more years of this ahead?

... Leave a Reply