Well, I usually find myself agreeing with Arthur but coming from that group
that you all are lionizing, I would have to respectfully disagree. The issue
for me is life experience, education and professionalism. The issue with
U.S. politicians is one of time. American Politicians are elected at different
intervals and in some cases are term limited. The governments don't fall
if an Executive loses a vote as in the Parliamentary systems. In the near
future we will see how the two systems compete in handling the competition
between a United Europe that is basically parliamentary and the United
States which is not.
Also the issues of wisdom are not IMO really the point. Buckley exists
in a very small group of wealthy and super-wealthy who are insular and
very uncomfortable with the products of general elections. They so
mistrust professionalism among politicians that they believe their only class
protection is an impotent government and term limits that couldn't
possibly allow the building of a serious professionalism amongst those
elected.
In the last few years I have seen life experience amongst politicians
demeaned by the wealthy, to the point that a long elected history means
that the person is "not able to get a job in the 'real' world" and is almost
on "welfare." The fact that they are so miserably underpaid and so
little controlled by the wealthy just makes it all that much worse as far
as the Buckley crowd is concerned. Imagine the CEO of ITT only
receiving $275,000 a year in salary. What kind of CEO would be
willing to take such a low salary for twenty-four hour a day work?
You may add in a "house" that when the job is terminated goes to the
next CEO with a job limit of 8 years and a review every four.
The fact that the local 100 names of the Boston telephone directory
believes that this will get them committed professional public servants
(and they do) casts great doubt in my mind on their wisdom and
sophistication. How about our letting them be responsible for the
budget of the country instead and treat highly trained professional
economists in the same fashion as politicians? I wouldn't even
support that and you realize how often economists have taken hits
from me on this list.
I believe in the value of life experience, education and professionalism.
The problem for me is the "Jude the Obscure" issue. How to recognize
and reward the person who against overwhelming odds develops their
own expertise and who breaks the bonds of the normal systems to
achieve a breakthrough. It has often been stated that Rodin's "Thinker"
was destroyed by the establishment and that van Gogh never sold a
painting except to a relative. That is used as a reason for not respecting
traditional knowledge and education. But when you destroy traditional
context what you get is a lack of loyalty and a rise in chaos.
So for me the problem is how to develop the normal person to their highest
potential while avoiding the "Peter Principle" and yet make room for the
genius or the breakthrough. Those to me are not problems that can be
solved by systems but must be solved by culture and a heightened
sophistication of the entire culture.
REH
Cordell, Arthur: DPP wrote:
> I agree. Many years ago William Buckley, the right wing editor of the right
> wing National Review made a statement that I was surprised to find myself
> agreeing to then, and even more so today. He said something like the
> following, "I would sooner have the first 100 names from the Boston phone
> book than the 100 elected US senators making decisions on my behalf" I have
> met many Harold's, people of commonsense, and have met many high IQ types,
> whizz-kids. Guess who I am going to look for for ideas during the next ice
> storm, or y2k disaster-- or just plain ideas on governance.
>
> arthur cordell
> ----------
> From: Victor Milne
> To: futurework
> Subject: Re:democracy
> Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 11:27AM
>
> As I recall, this thread got started with a comment about many of the voters
> seeming to be neither intelligent nor well-informed. I'm sure from many of
> his postings that Ed Weick did not mean this in an elitist sense.
>
> I don't think lack of intelligence is really the problem. I also do not
> think that intelligence in any easily definable sense is really relevant.
> The core of the issue is really personal values. I work in a factory and my
> best friend there is a spot-welder named Harold. I don't think Harold could
> have pursued all the academic education I obtained before my foot slipped
> off the career ladder. However, Harold's heart is in the right place and he
> has a great deal of common sense (in the original meaning of that phrase,
> not in the debased meaning popularized by the right-wing government of
> Ontario).
>
> When you promote the notion of governance based on intelligence, you have no
> guiding values to select those people. Although I have successfully
> completed 10 years of post-secondary education (English and later theology),
> I doubt that I or anyone else could prove that I am more intelligent than,
> say, a University of Chicago neoconservative economist. It just happens that
> I am right about most things and he is dead wrong!!! I would much rather see
> my friend Harold in charge of vital policy decisions than a neoconservative
> economist. That is why I would never support a meritocracy scheme like Jay
> Hanson's.
>
> I think that most people have their values right, say about 70 per cent of
> them. (I base this figure on poll results in Canada about specific issues
> such as health care or welfare.) However, the voters often elect parties
> that are all too likely to bring about results contrary to what they really
> want. They get taken in by phoney promises, "We have to cut the deficit, we
> have to give tax breaks to big business, so that we can afford to give you
> better health care ... sometime in the sweet bye-and-bye."
>
> The problem is one of misinformation for at 70 per cent of the voters. I do
> not see any easy way to change the situation. Media outlets are very
> expensive to own and operate, so by definition they will continue to be
> owned by the wealthy and to promote the interests of the wealthy. Most
> people are not going to search the Internet looking for fresh information
> and alternative viewpoints; they don't have the time and the specific
> interest. Stephen Best, Director of Environment Voters, believes that
> activisits can influence the direction of the government only by working at
> the grassroots level, doing personal canvassing during elections.
> http://environmentvoters.org
>
> I intimated that for perhaps 30 per cent of the voters, the problem is more
> than lack of information; they don't have their hearts in the right place.
> I've been doing some informal analysis of why some people enthusiastically
> support the regressive Mike Harris regime in Ontario although a
> well-informed person would see clearly that it is against their own economic
> self-interest.
>
> My observations convince me that for many people there is an emotional
> component to their allegiance that is quite impervious to logic and
> information. Some evince a masochistic guilt: "We were living too high off
> the hog; someone had to make those cuts." A larger number like to blame
> problems on the weak and helpless: "It's those lazy welfare bums that like
> to sit at home and drink beer while I'm out working my ass off to pay for
> them." Or it's the immigrants, people of colour, aboriginals, etc.
>
> I do not think there is much hope of changing people like that. As the
> French say, tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner. These people probably had
> a lousy childhood with parents knocking them around for nothing, and they've
> grown up to believe in knocking around the weak and helpless.
>
> The only hope I see is to work one at a time on the 70 per cent who are
> reasonably well-balanced to elect governments that promote the real
> long-term interests of citizens, and as we gradually get a better society,
> it will produce fewer people who are emotionally screwed up.
>
> Live long and prosper
>
> Victor Milne & Pat Gottlieb
>
> FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website
> at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/
>
> LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE
> at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
