And why is it a frightening thing if I look to you or me for leadership? Leadership is where you find it. One of the characteristics of government at all levels is the lack of leadership found therein.

America stands for freedom & opportunity...(While a Democrat Majority (House) kills a bill to normalize trade with Vietnam?! ) Right in time for the APEC Vietnam 2006 summit? Please Act. | Outsidethebeltway posts an interesting article : The Power of.....

Both the Roosevelts and the Bushes share that belief in public service, a type of noblesse oblige, so I am not sure what the actual distinction is.

Here's GWB's childhood home. Here's FDR's. Those I would characterize as “patricians” are reared in an environment in which they are expected and accustomed to giving direction from childhood.

Was George H. W. Bush reared in such an environment? I wouldn't be surprised. But he surrendered most of that when he left New England, using his dad's political connections to propel himself into the apparatus of Republican politics, he further installed himself into the U. S. foreign policy apparatus. That's why I think, in his case, apparatchik outweighs patrician.

Do we have genuine patricians nowadays? Possibly. I'm pretty far from that world now. But times have changed a lot and things are much more egalitarian so it's possible that being born to command is long gone.

Would you care to define your terms?

Was Bush 41 elected as an aristocrat or as an apparatchik? I think as the latter.

I'd characterize Bush 43's TV performance as adequate but I think his election in 2000 is best explained under the category “politically connected&3148;.

No, we elect patricians like Bush 41 and Bush 43.

As for great war leaders, I'm sure we'd be happy to elect one -- but whom? There *were* no "great war leaders" of Korea and Vietnam, with the marginal exception of MacArthur, whose defects were evident. Schwartzkopf and Powell were the only post-Vietnam contenders for that title; S. seems never to have been interested, and P. blew it under Bush 43.

Nor do I understand the contention that Bush 43 is any kind of TV performer. Rather, he was coddled by a news media determined to favor him over his Democratic competitors (see Bob Somersby, passim, on the media's "anyone but Gore" campaign).

Congress has declined as its members became term-round fundraisers, particularly after the popular election of senators (the worst mistake of the 20th century, amendment-wise). The presidency, like the SCOTUS, has grown to fill the vacuum.

We no longer elect patricians

Wrong. A "patrician" is someone who is a member of the aristocracy or a hereditary ruling class. To the extent that aristocracy exists in the US, both Bushes can firmly be considered "patrician."

We have never elected a leader of the Korean or Viet Nam Wars to the presidency

Wrong again. Bush, Jr. served honorably in the military during Viet Nam.

We don’t elect business leaders to the presidency, either

I don't know how you define "leader," but clearly Bush's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns highlighted his MBA background and experience as a businessman.