What is the thrust of this article? You have so many wandering, unsupported points that this article could be jailed for vagrancy.
You open with Confucius, implying that a nation without a faithful leader is doomed.
And then you go on to talk about the following tenuously-related points:
* US political candidates claim they have more faith than their opponents. * US citizens won't vote for a candidate who has not had a family. * The purpose of faith in politics is to trivialize hardship. * Self-confidence is solely derived from faith. * A leader can be elected who claims to be faithful, but isn't terribly. And therefore, by the first point, the nation is doomed.
So which is your point?
If it's Confucius, you have to follow up on that. Give us concrete examples of nations that have failed because their leaders are faithless. Toss out anything that doesn't have to do with this point.
If it's that US political candidates can't win without faith, show us which candidates lost because they didn't have faith.
Without some hard data, your article comes across as one big wandering conjecture, as a vague survey of faith and politics. Maybe you are interested in the latter; in that case, make it obvious that's what you're talking about!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 06:57 am (UTC)You open with Confucius, implying that a nation without a faithful leader is doomed.
And then you go on to talk about the following tenuously-related points:
* US political candidates claim they have more faith than their opponents.
* US citizens won't vote for a candidate who has not had a family.
* The purpose of faith in politics is to trivialize hardship.
* Self-confidence is solely derived from faith.
* A leader can be elected who claims to be faithful, but isn't terribly. And therefore, by the first point, the nation is doomed.
So which is your point?
If it's Confucius, you have to follow up on that. Give us concrete examples of nations that have failed because their leaders are faithless. Toss out anything that doesn't have to do with this point.
If it's that US political candidates can't win without faith, show us which candidates lost because they didn't have faith.
Without some hard data, your article comes across as one big wandering conjecture, as a vague survey of faith and politics. Maybe you are interested in the latter; in that case, make it obvious that's what you're talking about!