Czernobog
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #21
Sorry we don't do what you have just suggested. That's the point - we should. We should evaluate a candidate's experience, their abilities in their non-political fields, and their knowledge. I'm not saying that their judgement, and character shouldn't be factors. Only that they shouldn't be the overriding factors, and, unfortunately, the way we vote today, they are.I agree this is how we choose our representatives. And you'll notice you didn't include the very things that I said should inform our decisions - experience, ability, and knowledge. We just don't care if our representatives are dumb as a box of rocks (c.f. Michele Fucking Bachmann), just so long as they think the "right thoughts", and behave in the right way. Sorry...I think that's a problem...
I don't agree. I don't see better governance from old DC hands than I do from newcomers. Governor Palin was hands down a better governor than experienced Governor Murkowski or Governor Knowles.
We're sending politicians to DC because of their judgment. Sometimes we send them because of their demonstrated experience. Ability? To do what? Ability in their non-political career? Sure, that could be a signal. Ability to play the corrupt game in DC? I suppose that can appeal to some voters. Knowledge? Knowledge needs to be processed through a black box to come out as a decision. It's the black box that is crucial - how will the politician assess the knowledge? The knowledge can come from staff specialists, we don't need Obama-like experts on everything to be the politician.