>
> Look, being unable to deal with reality is practically the definition
> of insanity. This is why psychiatrists distinguish between insanity
> and mere pathology. You cannot run a gigantic country if you are
> insane. In fact, you usually have problems dressing yourself.
Once again, you're arguing that if one is Head of State, one cannot be insane. I'll thank you for acknowledging that my analysis was correct.
But frankly, this is probably one of the most extreme defenses for state power that I've ever read. By the logic you've presented, individuals who have achieved a degree of power high enough are not subject to the same judgement as others. If a dictator consigns whole tribes to mass graves because he doesn't like the shapes of their noses, or believes that they're conspiring with the Elves against his regime, he _cannot_ be called insane merely because he's the Head of State. By the same logic, George Bush's decisions as President are perfectly rational, because he has demonstrated enough skill, intelligence, and savvy to gain the Presidency in the first place.
As I said, there are few apologetics for power that are more extreme than this.