You created a bit of a false dichotomy here. In practice a parliamentary body needs a mix of competencies, rather than a monoculture of law students turned poli

You created a bit of a false dichotomy here. In practice a parliamentary body needs a mix of competencies, rather than a monoculture of law students turned political staffers turned politicians. > We don't need a congress full of subject-matter experts. What we need are people who respect and can work effectively with subject-matter experts. In practice, you need experts inside the tent. There is a trust gradient in politics, with a sharp drop-off for anyone "outside" of the party room. Especially if one side picks up an issue and uses that expertise to bash the other side. In that situation their opponent can either beat a retreat (followed by triumphalism) or they can deny the expertise. Especially if you don't trust the motives of the experts. This is less likely to happen if all sides are seeded with expertise. Banning CFCs is the best example of this dynamic. Reagan didn't understand the problem and it went against his policy instincts. But without the USA's involvement, any ban was pointless. It was Thatcher -- someone nearby on the trust gradient, with a background in chemistry -- who convinced Reagan that it was a real problem. He still didn't understand it, but he had a trusted source to rely on.