# Getting the Right People into Politics



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think it's fairly well-known and probably equally accepted that, with exceptions, almost all the people we don't want in politics are drawn to politics. I would be nicer than others in saying that they probably start out with good intentions to improve society, but they remain people undesirable for the task.

Yesterday, I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson frame this in a particularly elucidating way. Giving the numbers that make up Congress, he said that roughly half are qualified as lawyers. I've always known that lawyers tend to be our politicians, but he pointed out that becoming a lawyer - honing debating skills throughout education, and the actual process of law - is all about argument; _not_ resolution. In debates, you don't necessarily know what side you'll end up on, so you have to argue a case adequately from both sides, never seeking a consensus or middle-ground.

Of course, politicians choose their sides, but I think it is very true that the modern manifestation of politics is all about (usually) two major powers shouting the same tired points at each other, such that even on topics where statistics and data could enlighten policy, it is not taken into account because the ideological arguments are seen as more important. Winning the argument is more essential to the cause than coming to a consensus.

I'm with Tyson on lamenting the fact that there are few engineers, few scientists, even business people in politics, just to bring a different approach to the key questions of our age that isn't based on argument. Why do you think these other professions are disproportionately under-represented?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Of course you could turn to Plato's _Republic_ in which the author suggested that as everyone who wishes to be a leader does so for the wrong reasons: out of desire for personal advancement, we should forcibly employ those with no interest in ruling as our rulers/leaders. Of course Plato undermines himself by suggesting that we draw upon the philosophers... of which he is one... suggesting that he also would like to rule, thus making him equally unsuited to the job.:lol:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

_Poley:_
I'm with Tyson on lamenting the fact that there are few engineers, few scientists, even business people in politics, just to bring a different approach to the key questions of our age that isn't based on argument. Why do you think these other professions are disproportionately under-represented?

Hah. Could be because those are respected professions?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

There are loads of business people in politics, but they're on the buying end rather than the selling end.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm biased of course but engineers WOULD make the best politicians, our living is made on implementing *practical* solutions with a strictly quantitative mindset for the cheapest amount of money possible.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Politics turns the right people in to the wrong people.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> Politics turns the right people in to the wrong people.


Sort of. There seems to be a specific toxin around election campaigns which infects the candidate with hubris. If elected, the hubris may lead to a 'sense of entitlement' to the money and perks that are floating around at slightly below table height, available in exchange for 'considerations'.

So much personal data has washed into the internet now that it may soon be possible to discard election campaigns. People willing to serve could once again _stand_ for office, instead of _running_.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The "right" people have too much integrity to get involved. You have to be willing to become a two-faced deal maker and screw over the voters to succeed in the current system.

In America we need the right (not politically leaning right) people on the supreme court. The wrong folks on the court have voted in favor of money as speech, and corporations as people. This has to change.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think a focus on the Supreme Court is appropriate. It is the least democratic part of the government, for good and ill. And the judges are very powerful.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> I think a focus on the Supreme Court is appropriate. It is the least democratic part of the government, for good and ill. And the judges are very powerful.


Yeah. _Lots_ of hubris there. Not enough Justice.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> Politics turns the right people in to the wrong people.


I'm not so sure about that. The current system attracts self seeking opportunists/salesman types. Of course this has always been the case to a certain degree, but it's worse now than it was 35 years ago.

It's mostly plastic people in politics today. If you go back to Nixon/McGovern in the early 70s, you might despise one or the other, but they seemed like real people who believed in something.

I never cared for Nixon, but nobody's going to accuse him of being a salesman. The guy had zero personality/charisma. A far cry from Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich who strike me as complete phonies.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

We need more sociologists in politics.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Of course you could turn to Plato's _Republic_ in which the author suggested that as everyone who wishes to be a leader does so for the wrong reasons: out of desire for personal advancement, we should forcibly employ those with no interest in ruling as our rulers/leaders. Of course Plato undermines himself by suggesting that we draw upon the philosophers... of which he is one... suggesting that he also would like to rule, thus making him equally unsuited to the job.:lol:


I buy that completely. I'd just add that there is a disproportionate amount of sociopathy amongst politicians which adds to their undesirability.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I'm not so sure about that. The current system attracts self seeking opportunists/salesman types. Of course this has always been the case to a certain degree, but it's worse now than it was 35 years ago.
> 
> It's mostly plastic people in politics today. If you go back to Nixon/McGovern in the early 70s, you might despise one or the other, but they seemed like real people who believed in something.
> 
> I never cared for Nixon, but nobody's going to accuse him of being a salesman. The guy had zero personality/charisma. A far cry from Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich who strike me as complete phonies.


I'm not an American nor have I ever visited the US, so I can't claim to have experienced the system at all. However, one thing that sticks in my mind was an interview with Frank Zappa during the Reagan administration, where Zappa refers to him as a "teleprompter president". Would you say that Reagan was the first of these phonies like Perry and Gingrich, or had there been many before then? If this question seems silly to you, I apologise, it's difficult enough keeping up with the nonsense in UK politics let alone that of other countries, but I'm always interested to hear new information and opinions.

As for my initial point; I certainly don't believe that many of the people who do get in to politics are particularly honest or interested in doing right by the people in the first place, but I can't help but come to the conclusion that the honest person looking to try and change things "for the better" (for want of a better word; someone with principles) by way of government is inevitably swept up in the spin, the hubris, the bargaining etc. and turned from the latter archetype to the former.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> As for my initial point; I certainly don't believe that many of the people who do get in to politics are particularly honest or interested in doing right by the people in the first place, but I can't help but come to the conclusion that the honest person looking to try and change things "for the better" (for want of a better word; someone with principles) by way of government is inevitably swept up in the spin, the hubris, the bargaining etc. and turned from the latter archetype to the former.


Yes, the problem is that the genuinely pure-hearted politicians _have_ to play the twisted games if they want to get anywhere. The whole system needs to be gutted!


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Yes, the problem is that the genuinely pure-hearted politicians _have_ to play the twisted games if they want to get anywhere. The whole system needs to be gutted!


The trick would be to get the money out of it, which would be damn near impossible in the American system, because by our laws corporations are people and donations are protected speech.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

It is my unvarying policy to never vote for anyone who bears three first names. They are Attorney, Professor or Incumbent.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think there's many reasons for politicians being seen as opportunists and out of touch with the wider society, etc. I myself stopped being interested in politics in a deep way about a decade ago. I'm like a lot of people here, apathetic about the situation.

Before abut 1945, politics was more grass-roots here. Polednice's mention of the domination of politics by various professions is apt. & before 1945, many politicians - a number of our Labor Party prime ministers, for example - were former workers or miners. They started out in manual labour, worked their way up, fought for their education. Often through the trade unions.

Today, the Labor Party, all of them come from the middle classes. Their parents had degrees, they got degrees, and so on. Of course this speaks to the social, economic, political changes happening here after 1945. But I don't think it's good for a country's parliament to only have people who have same or similar background, give or take a few politicians who stand out for their difference (eg. we do have Aboriginal members of parliament, and those with migrant background (eg. non-Anglo), and also some former farmers who like the workers of old got an education and got access to parliament, that kind of thing, but these I think are in the minority).

Most of our pollies here are -yes - lawyers, also some teachers, economists, former businessmen/bankers, medical doctors, they're the usual thing as far as I can tell.

Both major parties have been trying to clean up the "branch stacking" - corruption and fudging of figures/numbers in local branches of the party, on the ground.

At least the worst of the worst is over. Eg. corruption of ancient times, in the 1970's. We had some State Premiers who had a fair deal of shady dealings. Eg. Bjelke-Petersen of Queensland, Askin of NSW, Henry Bolte of Victoria. But maybe that's just how things were done back then. At least a good deal has been cleaned up by now, there is less corruption here, at least of that "hand me some cash in a brown paper bag" kind.

I agree that the adversarial system is outdated. It seems that if you are like a shark or crocodile, you will succeed in this system. At the Federal level here, former leader of the conservative side (the Liberal Party), Malcolm Turnbull was given the boot by his party and now we have (as opposition leader) Tony Abbott. Not many people I know respect Abbott much, except diehards. Most people on left or right of politics respect Turnbull though, he is clearly a more balanced and pragmatic politician. Abbott seems bogged down with all sorts of ideology. Some say that Turnbull may yet return to lead the party if he can gain the numbers to become leader again.

What this story says is often the moderates are sidelined in the politics game. It is often about opinion polls, but those polls effects are often interpreted by the number crunchers with a view to the short term, not long term. "A week is a long time in politics," the saying goes.

Having said that, I was critical highly of former PM's Keating and Howard when they were in office. But now I can see that they did do some good things, although they weren't saints. It's like what some people are saying of former USA pollies above. With hindsight, our views can well become more balanced and not skewed due to ideology, etc.

But a little bit more of "the vision thing" to quote the George Bush Snr. would not go astray with today's pollies, that's for sure...


----------

