Now that the PA primary has failed to end the kamakazi Clinton campaign, it seems that unlimited ego will once again prevail over the common good (speaking of the common good of the Democratic party). This situation reminds us of something very interesting we learned while researching hunter/gatherer politics: those who desperately want to be leaders are automatically disqualified. Describing !Kung leaders, for example, an anthropologist who lived with them for several years writes:

"None is arrogant, overbearing, boastful, or aloof. In !Kung terms these traits absolutely disqualify a person as a leader and may engender even stronger forms of ostracism. Another trait emphatically not found among traditional camp leaders is a desire for wealth or acquisitiveness. Their accumulation of material goods is never more, and is often much less, than the average accumulation of the other households in their camp."

This isn't the place for a long diatribe about hunter/gatherer power structures, but it is worth noting that coercive political power is a relatively recent development in human history. In a sharing-based economic system like that followed by hunter/gatherers (which means our ancestors for 98% of our existence), it's very difficult to accumulate the sort of power that would allow you to MAKE anyone do anything. Walking away is always an option for everyone. When food and shelter are easily available to all, how does one go about becoming important? By being a good hunter perhaps and sharing the meat. Hoarding gets you ostracized.

Anyway, the point is that we go about choosing our leaders in such a way that we end up with those who are psychologically least qualified -- those with a NEED TO LEAD! "Fire in the belly" might be great for fans of Mexican food, but it leads to smoke in the brain for potential leaders. Better to draft a reluctant leader who has matured far beyond the burning desire to be called "Mr. (or Ms.) President."