4 ms·

I'm not sure it applies. You can still be well educated and greedy/egotistical and not work for your constituents. But within elections, what else SHOULD we vo

by croon 10y ago

I'm not sure it applies. You can still be well educated and greedy/egotistical and not work for your constituents. But within elections, what else SHOULD we vote for other than merit? What really bothered me when Obama was elected was people throwing the word "elitism" around, because he was smart, eloquent and well educated, like that was somehow a bad thing. I sure as hell hope that the people elected are smarter than me, because I would have no idea what I was doing in office. But I guess we'll now see what happens when you elect someone that's "just like us", except born with money.

maverick_iceman 10y ago
The idea that smarter people will be better at government is a fallacy which was conclusively disproved during 20th century. Since Plato's time there was this hypothesis that philosopher kings would somehow bring utopia or at least be better than the average ruler. Alas, the experiences of the 20th century belies that assumption. Communist parties were invariably led by formidable intellectuals (e.g. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot) but they only left utter hopelessness and destruction in their wake.
- croon 10y ago
  I don't disagree that it absolutely is no guarantee for success, but don't you agree that it's one requirement?
  - Sacho 10y ago
    I believe you are applying a circular definition. We call people smart when we like a majority of the actions they take. Due to the unknowable causes of these "smarts", we have invented many memes to rationalize them - eloquence, colege education, street smarts, intelligence, philosophical wisdom, the list goes on. Since we are good at hypocrisy as well as rationalization, we have left ourselves a back door for thebpeople we truly hate - he's not smart, he's lucky(or the opposite, if we are really sympathetic). I believe you are right that "these qualities" are a "requirement", but only due to their flexible nature and our tendency to assign and strip them in order to meet our just-world view.
    - croon 10y ago
      Trump is an idiot, Bill O'Reilly is smart. I don't like either. While I get your point, most rational people have no trouble attributing positive properties to people they dislike.
- curun1r 10y ago
  We had an 8-year experiment with a dumber person as President and that also failed pretty spectacularly. He got us involved in a war costing trillions of dollars that was in the wrong country and allowed Wall St to crater the economy. The contrast in the past 8 years with the 8 years that preceded it is pretty stark. The way I see it, being smart is no guarantee of success. This can be especially true when those intelligent people are misguided in what they aim to achieve. History is replete with people who were very effective in pursuing misguided goals. But that doesn't mean that less-than-intelligent people are well-suited to run government. It just means that we need to choose better from among our intelligent people.
Sacho 10y ago
I remember history a bit differently, with Obama being attacked due to his lack of political qualifications - he was too young, too inexperienced. I believe it was Clinton that ran with that narrative, although I may be misremembering.

by croon 10y ago

maverick_iceman 10y ago

The idea that smarter people will be better at government is a fallacy which was conclusively disproved during 20th century. Since Plato's time there was this hypothesis that philosopher kings would somehow bring utopia or at least be better than the average ruler. Alas, the experiences of the 20th century belies that assumption. Communist parties were invariably led by formidable intellectuals (e.g. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot) but they only left utter hopelessness and destruction in their wake.

croon 10y ago
I don't disagree that it absolutely is no guarantee for success, but don't you agree that it's one requirement?
- Sacho 10y ago
  I believe you are applying a circular definition. We call people smart when we like a majority of the actions they take. Due to the unknowable causes of these "smarts", we have invented many memes to rationalize them - eloquence, colege education, street smarts, intelligence, philosophical wisdom, the list goes on. Since we are good at hypocrisy as well as rationalization, we have left ourselves a back door for thebpeople we truly hate - he's not smart, he's lucky(or the opposite, if we are really sympathetic). I believe you are right that "these qualities" are a "requirement", but only due to their flexible nature and our tendency to assign and strip them in order to meet our just-world view.
  - croon 10y ago
    Trump is an idiot, Bill O'Reilly is smart. I don't like either. While I get your point, most rational people have no trouble attributing positive properties to people they dislike.
curun1r 10y ago
We had an 8-year experiment with a dumber person as President and that also failed pretty spectacularly. He got us involved in a war costing trillions of dollars that was in the wrong country and allowed Wall St to crater the economy. The contrast in the past 8 years with the 8 years that preceded it is pretty stark. The way I see it, being smart is no guarantee of success. This can be especially true when those intelligent people are misguided in what they aim to achieve. History is replete with people who were very effective in pursuing misguided goals. But that doesn't mean that less-than-intelligent people are well-suited to run government. It just means that we need to choose better from among our intelligent people.

Sacho 10y ago

I remember history a bit differently, with Obama being attacked due to his lack of political qualifications - he was too young, too inexperienced. I believe it was Clinton that ran with that narrative, although I may be misremembering.