I served under some the world's finest leaders in the US Navy, and I also observed the differences that set apart great leaders from others who were superb as Division Officers, but would have become less effective as Captains of a ship.
My teenagers compete in Team Policy Debate and Lincoln/Douglas style Values Debate with a homeschool organization. I've only been able to see a few of these debates, but they sure do like to talk about the processes.
Prospective legislators would benefit from Team Policy Debate, and it seems more suited to the legislative/collaborative process.
Leaders need to be able to establish a vision for the future, a general direction based on principles, morals, and values, that will inspire others to follow their lead and help shape policy objectives toward that vision and along the guidelines of those principles.
This difference is what makes Senators and Congress-critters (generally) poor prospects for leadership, but allows their policy work (if it matches the prospective leader's vision) be instrumental to a leadership team.
This is also why Ivy League and other MBAs have been disasterous as corporate leaders, and collectively are responsible for the current sad state of our economy and markets. As "business administrators", they are policy wonks, not leaders, focused on the quarter-end figures, with absolutely zero vision for the future, and seemingly oblivious to the secondary effects of their short-term stupidity. This is also why Romney is the worst possible choice of the current wannabee leaders.
Well said!