Peter's Principle

In 1969, Laurence J. Peter proposed a business theory that said individuals were promoted based on their performance in their current job, not on their potential to perform in the new one.  Thus, they would keep being promoted until they failed to perform, or simply put “managers rise to their level of incompetence.”  This has been known as the Peter Principle, and is often used to explain why companies never seem to be totally efficient since their top people are operating above their best level.

If we look around us today, this theory seems to hold great relevance to the political climate where the leadership of both main political parties seem so out of touch with the reality of President Trump.  The Democrats show the most obvious disconnect, but the majority party Republicans are not more than a step behind, as we see in their approach to healthcare and the general process of governing.

It seems no one, other than the President, has grasped this new reality of instantaneous, and often insane, communication.  The news punditry seems to trip over every tweet as if it were the reincarnation of the Monroe Doctrine.  Of course, they do it from their established anti-Trump positions, so there is little real new analysis.

Instead, they seek out those with supporting views, even if they are complete idiots, to show how right they are in their opinions.  For example, take this latest blow to liberal immigration policy where the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the restraining orders of the 4^th and 9^th Circuit Courts blocking the President’s Executive Orders suspending for 90 days the immigration of people from the countries President Obama’s administration had identified as having the highest potential for sending terrorists.  In doing this all nine Justices were in agreement, yet they show people condemning Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch as three of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.  [to be correct the SCOTUS did allow one exception to the written policy – so let’s call it a 98% victory for the President] 

And they wonder why the average American no longer trusts them to be “fair and balanced.”  For our part, as citizens, do we really want fair and balanced, or do we only want to hear what we like?  Increasingly it seems the later.  The question is why?