[Replying to post 4 by OnceConvinced
I'm going to fiction here, because something doesn't have to be true for it to be worthy of debate. I've been watching the TV show "Designated Survivor" starring Keifer Sutherland and you have this guy who's been thrown into the job of president even though he has no desire to get into politics at all, simply because he was deemed "designated survivor". He does a great job of running the country and does it without selfishi motivation or greed. He's the type of guy we need running countries. A guy who never ever wanted to be in charge but does so because someone needs to do the job and he cares about his country and the people in it.
OC, you are quite right. But how do we go about implementing or installing a reluctant but beneficial candidate? My favorite movie genre is the "reluctant hero" like John Holden in "The Bridge Over the River Kwai." What a sand-bagger he was. . . until pressed to the task or face prison for impersonating an officer. Recent leaders don't come close in that respect, nor do few legislators.
Harry Truman comes to my mind, when he succeeded FDR: "God knows I didn't ask for this job." he said when he was sworn in. But he performed well (and honestly), authoring the Marshall Plan and giving all the credit to General Marshall, knowing full well he would be ostracized if it was called the Truman Plan.
Bust Nak and DI: I wrestled with breaking down "Communism" in its various forms (Russian, Chinese, Cuban, etc.) but opted not to because too many people lump them all together. Yes, Communism could be a good thing if its leaders were altruistic and not greedy. A form of Communism led by a power-reluctant leader(s) would be indeed utopian. But I don't see it in the tea leaves anytime soon. The odds are we'll destroy ourselves rather than seek such a solution!