Why is politics...

[DawginSC]

the only profession where we don't want experienced people in charge?

Serious question. I mean, we want our doctors to be a professional with experience. We want experienced accountants, fire fighters, policemen, etc.

But in politics we seem to be against "career" politicians... you know... the ones with experience. This isn't just the GOP embracing Trump... Obama wasn't particularly experienced in politics either when he was elected president. Even Bush didn't have a lot of experience (6 years as a governor).

I wouldn't want Jeb Bush operating on my brain... why would I want Ben Carson running my country?

But in general we seem to gravitate that direction... but only in politics.

 

[UgaTom]

the only profession where we don't want experienced people in charge?

Serious question. I mean, we want our doctors to be a professional with experience. We want experienced accountants, fire fighters, policemen, etc.

But in politics we seem to be against "career" politicians... you know... the ones with experience. This isn't just the GOP embracing Trump... Obama wasn't particularly experienced in politics either when he was elected president. Even Bush didn't have a lot of experience (6 years as a governor).

I wouldn't want Jeb Bush operating on my brain... why would I want Ben Carson running my country?

But in general we seem to gravitate that direction... but only in politics.

Because power corrupts, and the longer a person stays in power, the easier it is for him to consolidate it. Besides, politicians will never be experts on all the subjects that are brought to their attention. Rarely will they ever have that kind of knowledge about more than one or two subjects. Advisers are the people who have that knowledge.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

Because power corrupts, and the longer a person stays in power, the easier it is for him to consolidate it. Besides, politicians will never be an experts on all the subjects that are brought to their attention. Rarely will they ever have that kind of knowledge about more than one or two subjects. Advisers are the people who have that knowledge.

Excellent response. Couldn't have said it better.

 

[DawginSC]

Because power corrupts, and the longer a person stays in power, the easier it is for him to consolidate it. Besides, politicians will never be experts on all the subjects that are brought to their attention. Rarely will they ever have that kind of knowledge about more than one or two subjects. Advisers are the people who have that knowledge.

Doesn't the same logic apply to CEO's of major corporations?

They have a lot of power. They tend not to know everything but rather rely on advisers in various areas.

They don't tend to just pull some guy with no business experience or a just a couple of years in IT to replace a retiring CEO though... they look for someone who's got a lot of experience.

 

[UgaTom]

Doesn't the same logic apply to CEO's of major corporations?

They have a lot of power. They tend not to know everything but rather rely on advisers in various areas.

They don't tend to just pull some guy with no business experience or a just a couple of years in IT to replace a retiring CEO though... they look for someone who's got a lot of experience.

No, it's not the same. A CEO cannot directly exert control over your life. A CEO cannot make laws which take money from you. If you want to know why career politicians are a bad a idea, look at Harry Reid. He has been a politician for just about all of his adult life. He is making the most money he has ever made right now (just under $200k) yet has a net worth in the neighborhood of $3MM - $6MM. Career politicians have a strange way of enriching themselves way beyond what their compensation for public service should enable them to do.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

Doesn't the same logic apply to CEO's of major corporations?

They have a lot of power. They tend not to know everything but rather rely on advisers in various areas.

They don't tend to just pull some guy with no business experience or a just a couple of years in IT to replace a retiring CEO though... they look for someone who's got a lot of experience.

A CEO must also answer to his shareholders,the law and market trends.Yes there are some bad examples, but for the most part they have to answer to others and will not risk a good thing for going rouge.

 

[DawginSC]

A CEO must also answer to his shareholders,the law and market trends.Yes there are some bad examples, but for the most part they have to answer to others and will not risk a good thing for going rouge.

The president also has to answer to voters through elections and to the house and senate (to avoid impeachment)

In the end, the presidency is largely like being a CEO of a VERY powerful company. And powerful companies rarely select inexperienced CEO's. But voters like inexperienced people as president these days.

 

[UgaTom]

The president also has to answer to voters through elections and to the house and senate (to avoid impeachment)

In the end, the presidency is largely like being a CEO of a VERY powerful company. And powerful companies rarely select inexperienced CEO's. But voters like inexperienced people as president these days.

If they are so similar as you say, then a person shouldn't need political experience to be President. Any experience as a leader, whether in business (Perot, Trump) or the military (Eisenhower), should make a person qualified for the job. A person like Trump could bring a perspective to the job that no career politician ever could.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

The president also has to answer to voters through elections and to the house and senate (to avoid impeachment)

In the end, the presidency is largely like being a CEO of a VERY powerful company. And powerful companies rarely select inexperienced CEO's. But voters like inexperienced people as president these days.

If that were the case obama would be gone, everything he has done (except ordering the hit on osama) has been to the detriment of the United States as a nation. If someone were trying to destroy the US they would not do things ant differently than he has. The general population is to uninformed or to apathetic to understand or care about big brothers effects on their lives.

 

[Boost Assendahm]

the only profession where we don't want experienced people in charge?

Serious question. I mean, we want our doctors to be a professional with experience. We want experienced accountants, fire fighters, policemen, etc.

But in politics we seem to be against "career" politicians... you know... the ones with experience. This isn't just the GOP embracing Trump... Obama wasn't particularly experienced in politics either when he was elected president. Even Bush didn't have a lot of experience (6 years as a governor).

I wouldn't want Jeb Bush operating on my brain... why would I want Ben Carson running my country?

But in general we seem to gravitate that direction... but only in politics.

No one wants experienced, manipulative, self-interested crooks directly affecting his life.

 

[DawginSC]

If that were the case obama would be gone, everything he has done (except ordering the hit on osama) has been to the detriment of the United States as a nation. If someone were trying to destroy the US they would not do things ant differently than he has. The general population is to uninformed or to apathetic to understand or care about big brothers effects on their lives.

He pleased his stockholders though.... as he was re-elected. And he didn't do enough to have the board (house and senate) remove (impeach) him.

 

[DawginSC]

If they are so similar as you say, then a person shouldn't need political experience to be President. Any experience as a leader, whether in business (Perot, Trump) or the military (Eisenhower), should make a person qualified for the job. A person like Trump could bring a perspective to the job that no career politician ever could.

By the same token, a high school football coach could bring perspective to being the CEO of AT&T and has experience as a leader... but they don't get put in those positions.

 

[FSUATT]

No one wants experienced, manipulative, self-interested crooks directly affecting his life.

That is also why I don't want Trump as President. The only person currently running that I think would make a half way decent president is Kasich, and he has no chance of winning. It really is a sad situation.

 

[UgaTom]

By the same token, a high school football coach could bring perspective to being the CEO of AT&T and has experience as a leader... but they don't get put in those positions.

High school football coaches aren't at the top of their profession as CEOs are. I'm anxious to see how will next try to extend your poor analogy.

 

[DawginSC]

High school football coaches aren't at the top of their profession as CEOs are. I'm anxious to see how will next try to extend your poor analogy.

I simply stated that I found it odd that politics is the only area where we seem (both democrats and republicans) to not want experienced people in the top positions. We want "outsiders". I wondered why that was.

Others said that politics is simply different. I'm questioning if it really is.

There's no analogy involved.

Unless you are starting your own company, CEO's are generally chosen from people who are experienced... either at lower level executive positions (CIO/CFO/COO) or as CEO's with other companies. Same goes with head football coaches (either assistant football coaches or head coaches from other places). In general if you change from one profession to another... (say from a business job to teaching), you don't enter at a leadership position... you enter at a lower level. YOu become a teacher... not a principal. You can't join the army as a general.

I simply find it odd that as a country we are okay with people becoming president with no experience at all in politics or military service (which can at least be argued is part of the political realm at higher ranks, even if it's just the defense and foreign policy areas). I'm not saying it's wrong. I feel like I have feelings along those lines as well when I look at career politicians. I just can't logically explain WHY that influences my views on politicians.

 

[UgaTom]

I simply stated that I found it odd that politics is the only area where we seem (both democrats and republicans) to not want experienced people in the top positions. We want "outsiders". I wondered why that was.

Others said that politics is simply different. I'm questioning if it really is.

There's no analogy involved.

Unless you are starting your own company, CEO's are generally chosen from people who are experienced... either at lower level executive positions (CIO/CFO/COO) or as CEO's with other companies. Same goes with head football coaches (either assistant football coaches or head coaches from other places). In general if you change from one profession to another... (say from a business job to teaching), you don't enter at a leadership position... you enter at a lower level. YOu become a teacher... not a principal. You can't join the army as a general.

I simply find it odd that as a country we are okay with people becoming president with no experience at all in politics or military service (which can at least be argued is part of the political realm at higher ranks, even if it's just the defense and foreign policy areas). I'm not saying it's wrong. I feel like I have feelings along those lines as well when I look at career politicians. I just can't logically explain WHY that influences my views on politicians.

You made plenty of analogies in the course of this thread, but whatever.

Politics and governing are about people's lives. Just about everything gov't does affects people's lives either directly or indirectly. That's why a person doesn't have to be a politician to have an understanding of what politics is about - he has seen politics at work his whole life.

 

[DawginSC]

You made plenty of analogies in the course of this thread, but whatever.

Politics and governing are about people's lives. Just about everything gov't does affects people's lives either directly or indirectly. That's why a person doesn't have to be a politician to have an understanding of what politics is about - he has seen politics at work his whole life.

I'm just having problems with that thought process.

I've seen the weather every day of my life... but I'm not qualified to be a meteorologist. I may know that when dark clouds are to the east of my house I'll get rain and if they're to the west it will miss my house... but that doesn't mean I can build a climate model.

I've had diabetes most of my life... but I'm not qualified to be an endocrinologist. I know how certain foods will impact my blood sugar, but that doesn't mean I could look at a chart and determine which glands might be failing in a patient.

Now I can write an accounting computer system from scratch... because I have a degree in information systems and 15+ years of experience... mostly in financial systems. But I don't expect people who have used excel to know how to do that. It kind of requires some knowledge or experience.

Just because you know that politics affects your life and may even be aware loosely of some of the impacts doesn't mean you have the knowledge/experience to actually effectively decide policy.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

the only profession where we don't want experienced people in charge?

Serious question. I mean, we want our doctors to be a professional with experience. We want experienced accountants, fire fighters, policemen, etc.

But in politics we seem to be against "career" politicians... you know... the ones with experience. This isn't just the GOP embracing Trump... Obama wasn't particularly experienced in politics either when he was elected president. Even Bush didn't have a lot of experience (6 years as a governor).

I wouldn't want Jeb Bush operating on my brain... why would I want Ben Carson running my country?

But in general we seem to gravitate that direction... but only in politics.

Because America doesn't have a Royal class. We were founded on citizen government. You seem to think bring in gov for decades makes a person capable....It doesn't. Look at John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Grahamnesty

 

[DawginSC]

Because America doesn't have a Royal class. We were founded on citizen government. You seem to think bring in gov for decades makes a person capable....It doesn't. Look at John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Grahamnesty

It's not a "class" thing to think that you should work your way up and gain experience before being the top dawg in a career.

We don't have an accounting "royal" class either... but in general you're going to have to get a job as a plain accountant before you can be in charge of a company's accounting department. And not all people who hold down jobs as accountants are any good at it either. Doesn't mean I want to hire a journalist to run my accounting department. I just need to hire the most capable accountant I can find. If we had to choose between a bright forensic chemist and a dim accountant to run my accounting department... most people will choose the accountant. If they're both equally bright, nearly EVERYONE will choose the accountant.

But in politics if the choice is between an inexperienced and experienced politician of equal intelligence and similar policy stances... almost all of us would choose the inexperienced politician (regardless of party).

Just seems odd.

 

[UgaTom]

I'm just having problems with that thought process.

I've seen the weather every day of my life... but I'm not qualified to be a meteorologist. I may know that when dark clouds are to the east of my house I'll get rain and if they're to the west it will miss my house... but that doesn't mean I can build a climate model.

I've had diabetes most of my life... but I'm not qualified to be an endocrinologist. I know how certain foods will impact my blood sugar, but that doesn't mean I could look at a chart and determine which glands might be failing in a patient.

Now I can write an accounting computer system from scratch... because I have a degree in information systems and 15+ years of experience... mostly in financial systems. But I don't expect people who have used excel to know how to do that. It kind of requires some knowledge or experience.

Just because you know that politics affects your life and may even be aware loosely of some of the impacts doesn't mean you have the knowledge/experience to actually effectively decide policy.

You're trying to make everything a perfect analogy for politics. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, there would be courses people would have to take and degrees they would have to earn to become politicians, just like there are for meteorologists and endocrinologists. Plenty of people who aren't politicians or who aren't experts in a subject can intelligently debate the merits of a political policy. At the most basic level, all politicians do is form opinions based on information they are given or glean for themselves. There's nothing that makes a career politician any better at doing that than any other person, like a CEO or general, who makes his living making decisions.

 

[DawginSC]

You're trying to make everything a perfect analogy for politics. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, there would be courses people would have to take and degrees they would have to earn to become politicians, just like there are for meteorologists and endocrinologists. Plenty of people who aren't politicians or who aren't experts in a subject can intelligently debate the merits of a political policy. At the most basic level, all politicians do is form opinions based on information they are given or glean for themselves. There's nothing that makes a career politician any better at doing that than any other person, like a CEO or general, who makes his living making decisions.

Well... there are degrees that relate to politics... specifically political science, public policy and law degrees (each dealing with different parts of executive, legislative or judicial branches).

And just like many other careers (including my own... computer programming), experience matters too. I work with several people with degrees in odd things who are accomplished programmers due to starting at a basic level and working in the field. We have a guy with a wildlife-fisheries degree who started as a programmer and has advanced fairly far. We also have an industrial relations major working in networking.

I'm a superior programmer much more because I've been doing it for 15 years, improving my skills and understanding of software development techniques than because I have a IS degree.

I'm interested in policy... but I'm guessing that Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton would be able to discuss plenty of policy issues I'd be clueless on... because it's what they've been doing forever. I might be able to hang with them on one or two, but possibly not.

I can make excellent decisions on software development strategies, database design, networking and other IT issues that have been my career so far.
I can make reasonable decisions on business issues, accounting, costing, finance, manufacturing, industrial engineering, payroll, contract law and other areas I've had to learn a good deal about in order to program solutions for.
Can I make great decisions about education policy, economic stimulus or trade deals... even with great advice from experts? Can I work with legislators who have diverse goals to reach a governing consensus?

I'm doubtful. I've seen non-IS guys make idiotic decisions about IS-issues even with people telling them the pertinent information. Could I pick up much of the political knowledge and skill working my way up through various levels of politics? Probably. But I'm not going to be very good at any of it to start with.

I do wonder if people who think they know about politics and talk about it with career politicians elicit the same response I get when people who think they know something about programming talk to me about programming. I nod and smile at them, but inside my head I'm screaming at how little they understand what they're talking about/asking for.

 

[whitepug6]

No one wants experienced, manipulative, self-interested crooks directly affecting his life.

Not until you're: a) the victim of a crime; b) sued; or, c) arrested and charged with a crime. THEN you're grateful for having experienced, manipulative, self-interested crooks affecting your life.

 

[whitepug6]

Because America doesn't have a Royal class. We were founded on citizen government. You seem to think bring in gov for decades makes a person capable....It doesn't. Look at John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Grahamnesty

Would you say the same thing about Carl Vinson, Richard Russell, Walter George, or Sam Nunn?

I believe these career politicians' long experience in public service benefited Georgia and the nation.

 

[UgaTom]

Well... there are degrees that relate to politics... specifically political science, public policy and law degrees (each dealing with different parts of executive, legislative or judicial branches).

And just like many other careers (including my own... computer programming), experience matters too. I work with several people with degrees in odd things who are accomplished programmers due to starting at a basic level and working in the field. We have a guy with a wildlife-fisheries degree who started as a programmer and has advanced fairly far. We also have an industrial relations major working in networking.

I'm a superior programmer much more because I've been doing it for 15 years, improving my skills and understanding of software development techniques than because I have a IS degree.

I'm interested in policy... but I'm guessing that Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton would be able to discuss plenty of policy issues I'd be clueless on... because it's what they've been doing forever. I might be able to hang with them on one or two, but possibly not.

I can make excellent decisions on software development strategies, database design, networking and other IT issues that have been my career so far.
I can make reasonable decisions on business issues, accounting, costing, finance, manufacturing, industrial engineering, payroll, contract law and other areas I've had to learn a good deal about in order to program solutions for.
Can I make great decisions about education policy, economic stimulus or trade deals... even with great advice from experts? Can I work with legislators who have diverse goals to reach a governing consensus?

I'm doubtful. I've seen non-IS guys make idiotic decisions about IS-issues even with people telling them the pertinent information. Could I pick up much of the political knowledge and skill working my way up through various levels of politics? Probably. But I'm not going to be very good at any of it to start with.

I do wonder if people who think they know about politics and talk about it with career politicians elicit the same response I get when people who think they know something about programming talk to me about programming. I nod and smile at them, but inside my head I'm screaming at how little they understand what they're talking about/asking for.

Yes, there are degrees related to politics. None of them are prerequisites to holding political positions.

What Jeb Bush, Hillary, and every other MoC have been doing forever is listening to people who are experts in their fields. That is the exact same thing any person, regardless of his experience level, would be doing as President, and that is exactly why being a career politician is not essential to being President. The vote of the least senior MoC counts the same as the most senior MoC because political experience doesn't matter. Listening to people who have experience does.

Do you feel that you are unqualified to vote on ballot initiatives? Are you unable to form opinions about such things because you have *zero* political experience? Politicians are no smarter than many people who aren't politicians. They are not some special class of people who are better able to make decisions. They just have better access to information about issues than non-politicians. Presidents have that same access. If they made decisions in a vacuum, you'd have a point. Tthey don't.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Would you say the same thing about Carl Vinson, Richard Russell, Walter George, or Sam Nunn?

I believe these career politicians' long experience in public service benefited Georgia and the nation.

Not old enough to remember them except Nunn. and Yes I'd say it about that phony liberal SOB too

 

[im4thedawgs]

the only profession where we don't want experienced people in charge?

Serious question. I mean, we want our doctors to be a professional with experience. We want experienced accountants, fire fighters, policemen, etc.

But in politics we seem to be against "career" politicians... you know... the ones with experience. This isn't just the GOP embracing Trump... Obama wasn't particularly experienced in politics either when he was elected president. Even Bush didn't have a lot of experience (6 years as a governor).

I wouldn't want Jeb Bush operating on my brain... why would I want Ben Carson running my country?

But in general we seem to gravitate that direction... but only in politics.

The fact you even pose the question shows that perhaps you haven't been paying attention the last 30 years. Career politicians by nature trade political favors for votes. Why do you think Obama sided with the teachers union against charter schools in D.C. when it was so obvious that it wasn't in the best interest of helping educate poor blacks in D.C.? Politics and union money, not because it was the right thing to do. Why are lobbyist on both sides such a part of the political process? Anyone who spends any time in Washington is corrupted by the political system. Experienced politicians, no thanks. Return to the "real world" and earn an honest living along with the rest of us. Unfortunately most private citizens can't set up their own "foundation" while collecting 2 billion in exchange for buying political favor and influence. Which is why Hillary's so-called experience is an example of everything that is wrong with the current political system and with so-called experienced politicians. They've become multi-millionaires in the process and 100% totally corrupt. Heck, even the Democrats presidential nominating process is rigged and the Republican establishment is upset they can't rig theirs.

 

[im4thedawgs]

He pleased his stockholders though.... as he was re-elected. And he didn't do enough to have the board (house and senate) remove (impeach) him.

Obama benefited from the same uninformed people who voted for him but couldn't even identify a photo of his Vice President. The "dumbing down" of America on full display.

 

[im4thedawgs]

I'm just having problems with that thought process.

I've seen the weather every day of my life... but I'm not qualified to be a meteorologist. I may know that when dark clouds are to the east of my house I'll get rain and if they're to the west it will miss my house... but that doesn't mean I can build a climate model.

I've had diabetes most of my life... but I'm not qualified to be an endocrinologist. I know how certain foods will impact my blood sugar, but that doesn't mean I could look at a chart and determine which glands might be failing in a patient.

Now I can write an accounting computer system from scratch... because I have a degree in information systems and 15+ years of experience... mostly in financial systems. But I don't expect people who have used excel to know how to do that. It kind of requires some knowledge or experience.

Just because you know that politics affects your life and may even be aware loosely of some of the impacts doesn't mean you have the knowledge/experience to actually effectively decide policy.

I've got the best answer: Congresswoman Corrine Brown of Florida and her gerrymandered district which guarantees that her stupid ass gets re-elected. But I'm sure her daughter enjoys the new Lexus she got as a result of one of mom's votes.

 

[im4thedawgs]

Doesn't the same logic apply to CEO's of major corporations?

They have a lot of power. They tend not to know everything but rather rely on advisers in various areas.

They don't tend to just pull some guy with no business experience or a just a couple of years in IT to replace a retiring CEO though... they look for someone who's got a lot of experience.

Corporations also have to "make" money, not just spend someone else's money like politicians do. Which is why they (politicians) so freely spend taxpayer money and even money they don't even have. Gotta be smarter to make money than spend it.

 

[Boost Assendahm]

Not until you're: a) the victim of a crime; b) sued; or, c) arrested and charged with a crime. THEN you're grateful for having experienced, manipulative, self-interested crooks affecting your life.

You talking lawyers or law makers? Oh, never mind, they're all the same guys. Precedence tells most of us that time served in Washington DC, just like a felon's time in prison, rarely produces positive results for the rest of us. Term limits, no less than campaign finance reform must be addressed. Some serious and effective monitoring and reporting of interaction between influence peddlers and providers should apply to the burgeoning lobbyist industry in and around our nation's Capitol. We have LOTS of common ground to work with.

 

[whitepug6]

Not old enough to remember them except Nunn. and Yes I'd say it about that phony liberal SOB too

How can you be a Georgia Bulldog and not know who Richard B. Russell, Jr. is? The Russell Hall dormitory at UGA is named after him, along with a political library on the UGA campus, a US Senate office building, the Richard B. Russell Federal Building in Atlanta, the Richard B. Russell Lake near Elberton, and a whole bunch of elementary and high schools in Georgia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Vinson

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/richard-b-russell-jr-1897-1971

 

[whitepug6]

You talking lawyers or law makers? Oh, never mind, they're all the same guys. Precedence tells most of us that time served in Washington DC, just like a felon's time in prison, rarely produces positive results for the rest of us. Term limits, no less than campaign finance reform must be addressed. Some serious and effective monitoring and reporting of interaction between influence peddlers and providers should apply to the burgeoning lobbyist industry in and around our nation's Capitol. We have LOTS of common ground to work with.

So you would want to term-limit capable men like Richard Russell and Carl Vinson? Vinson served 50 years in the House and Russell 38 years in the Senate. The US military would be much worse off today if not for Vinson chairing the House Armed Services Committee and Russell chairing the Senate Armed Services Committee.

 

[Boost Assendahm]

So you would want to term-limit capable men like Richard Russell and Carl Vinson? Vinson served 50 years in the House and Russell 38 years in the Senate. The US military would be much worse off today if not for Vinson chairing the House Armed Services Committee and Russell chairing the Senate Armed Services Committee.

It all comes down to "our guy's wonderful, and your guy's a crook." Ford or Chevy? Cheerios or Frosted Flakes? No matter, we are dupes after a point. To say no one else could have had the intelligence, skills or chutzpah to craft a military (or any other) organization or to whittle a few of his constituents' interests through "the system" is fundamentally wrong, unless only one or two states put term limits on their federal representatives.

And for most of us to think an effective system requires time and grade as proof of an ability to serve specific constituents' best interests would also assume that older teachers with ascending levels of tenure are automatically more effective instructors. And unlike teaching, governing has much, much more exposure to influence peddlers than to voters/constituents and as such functionally more beholden to the peddlers, lobbyists, special interests and personal interests.

The reality of power, money and corruption is what we have. To say "it is what it is" does not excuse its slow playing us or its wastefulness. We should instead demand and expect government to become what it should or could be at all levels, effective, efficient and responsive to its citizens.

 

[whitepug6]

It all comes down to "our guy's wonderful, and your guy's a crook." Ford or Chevy? Cheerios or Frosted Flakes? No matter, we are dupes after a point. To say no one else could have had the intelligence, skills or chutzpah to craft a military (or any other) organization or to whittle a few of his constituents' interests through "the system" is fundamentally wrong, unless only one or two states put term limits on their federal representatives.

And for most of us to think an effective system requires time and grade as proof of an ability to serve specific constituents' best interests would also assume that older teachers with ascending levels of tenure are automatically more effective instructors. And unlike teaching, governing has much, much more exposure to influence peddlers than to voters/constituents and as such functionally more beholden to the peddlers, lobbyists, special interests and personal interests.

The reality of power, money and corruption is what we have. To say "it is what it is" does not excuse its slow playing us or its wastefulness. We should instead demand and expect government to become what it should or could be at all levels, effective, efficient and responsive to its citizens.

You make some good points, but the House and Senate are based on the seniority system, and power and influence gravitate to those Congresspeople and Senators who have been there the longest.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

How can you be a Georgia Bulldog and not know who Richard B. Russell, Jr. is? The Russell Hall dormitory at UGA is named after him, along with a political library on the UGA campus, a US Senate office building, the Richard B. Russell Federal Building in Atlanta, the Richard B. Russell Lake near Elberton, and a whole bunch of elementary and high schools in Georgia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Vinson

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/richard-b-russell-jr-1897-1971

Don't really GAS about liberals...regardless.

 

[Boost Assendahm]

You make some good points, but the House and Senate are based on the seniority system, and power and influence gravitate to those Congresspeople and Senators who have been there the longest.

I understand how it's supposed to work, but the power, the reach, the leverage and the control eventually ruin the good intentions and lofty roles we set (and rightfully expect) for and from OUR representatives. In short we the people deserve more considerate representation. If shorter terms can achieve that, great. If closer monitoring of influence peddling and donor intentions can be effectively accomplished, equally great. Most of the the "anger" aka discontent flying around message boards these days is born of watching our system not work as it should for decades and decades, regardless of which party claims to be in "power."

 

[DawginSC]

Yes, there are degrees related to politics. None of them are prerequisites to holding political positions.

What Jeb Bush, Hillary, and every other MoC have been doing forever is listening to people who are experts in their fields. That is the exact same thing any person, regardless of his experience level, would be doing as President, and that is exactly why being a career politician is not essential to being President. The vote of the least senior MoC counts the same as the most senior MoC because political experience doesn't matter. Listening to people who have experience does.

Do you feel that you are unqualified to vote on ballot initiatives? Are you unable to form opinions about such things because you have *zero* political experience? Politicians are no smarter than many people who aren't politicians. They are not some special class of people who are better able to make decisions. They just have better access to information about issues than non-politicians. Presidents have that same access. If they made decisions in a vacuum, you'd have a point. Tthey don't.

Hmmm. I think we're getting to the crux of it.

To be honest, most of the time I don't feel like I'm really qualified to vote on ballot initiatives... but that's probably largely about the lack of information as you mentioned. I have to agree that it is a big factor. I do tend to try to find someone who is more of an expert on the issue and get their views when making up my mind.

I guess the part I'm unsure about is if "decision making ability" is truly transferable from one area to another. I've seen too many decision makers who come from the business side of the companies I've worked in make HORRIBLE decisions related to IS, despite having very informed people giving them advice. The same people make extremely wise decisions in other areas more directly related to the business (where they have experience).

I have to think that some basic level of experience with the subject of a decision is required. The CIO for my company isn't a tech whiz. But he's familiar enough with information technology and the realities of how development projects work that he can listen to those of us providing him advice and make reasonable decisions. The CEO with the same information cannot. The difference is having at least SOME experience with the subject of the decision and not trying to fit information into a paradigm that doesn't fit the subject.

That might explain why I have an easier time seeing Cruz or Kasich do a passable job as president than I do with Trump or Carson. Trump might be trying to fit political decisions into a business decision framework and Carson might be trying to fit political decisions into a medical decision framework... and that probably won't work.

 

[whitepug6]

Don't really GAS about liberals...regardless.

LOL Russell was definitely not a liberal. All the more reason why you should read up on him.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

LOL Russell was definitely not a liberal. All the more reason why you should read up on him.

Then why do you like him? I saw an exhibit in the special collections library set up in his honor. I need to read up on him, i know he did a lot of good for Georgia and his district.

 

[whitepug6]

Then why do you like him? I saw an exhibit in the special collections library set up in his honor. I need to read up on him, i know he did a lot of good for Georgia and his district.

I like him because he was a strong advocate for the military, especially the US Army.