Z, put aside the political specifics. No one here is claiming that Russell Brand should be our new world leader, and that he has devised a flawless political system. I made it a point to say verbal fireworks, in hopes that people would understand that I wanted to focus on the effect of his words, not critique the content. That's what's important when listening to Russell Brand. To get bogged down in the political nitty-gritty of this interview is to miss the point, even outside the context of my OP.
Brand did not go into that interview to espouse a specific solution to save the world, he was just defending himself against harshly framed questions. The exchange opens with Jeremy sneering at Russell for guesting-editing a political magazine. Russell kind of chuckles and straight-up admits he doesn't know very much about politics and that he accepted the job as editor out of sheer novelty. He really wasn't trying to cut a serious figure, and yet Paxton came after him pretty hard, and kept putting him down. No wonder Brand got so worked up, and vented his "ressentiment" (I don't like this word, unless I'm writing in French), Paxton was trivializing the validity of Brand's core values.
The interview wouldn't have been forced to get all politically specific if Paxton didn't come out and say: all your political beliefs are invalid because you don't vote. You don't like the political system--explain why and now construct a model for your ideal government. If you can't do that, you have no business guest-editing a political magazine. Paxton backed him into a corner.
I think Russell makes a good point when he says:
I mean, most everyone would be hard-pressed to do so on the spot, especially if you didn't expect that to come up in the interview. And Russell, as he himself admitted, is not qualified to run the world and decide exactly how it's going to be run. He has no political experience and has no formal education beyond a high school diploma. He is merely giving a voice to the disillusioned, inarticulate masses, who don't have a platform to champion different leaders and alternative politics that might serve them better. And that is what ENFP's do best (Mostly the point of my OP). They aren't systems builders, they are powerful, captivating voices. As Jung put it, Ne-doms are "the natural champion of all minorities with a future".
It's easy to make someone look stupid by asking them to work within your limits. Brand's not going to look good if you ask him to play world leader, and it's a bit nutty to ask of him in the first place. Russell was speaking from a place of values and experience, not political science. Brand didn't frame the interview like that, Paxton did. To me, it was a power move, an attempt to humiliate and dismiss Russell, by rigging the conversational game. But really, by being so tough on him, it just made Brand look more credible.