Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Oexmelin]

Is politics a profession?

Most of our constitutional arrangements (not just in the US) actually signal quite the opposite: that politics is not a profession, but something else. It is a remnant from the very old notion of "service" that was both inherited from ancient democracy, and from royal service - the idea that there was an inherent nobility to giving your time, and your life, to the service of something bigger. Service was not something you did, it was something you embodied. The qualities you were expected to demonstrate were those you already possessed, honed in the rest of your life. Hence, most men of the 18th and 19th century were wary, or quite hostile, to the election of the "improper" kinds of people, whose live, consumed by the the first basic necessities, could not allow them to elevate themselves to such higher considerations.

But 18th and 19th century men were also quite familiar with power brokers, the concentration of power, and the unequal distribution of the social skills that was necessary to make oneself agreeable, if not virtuous. Some appreciated it for what it was: a way to keep power in the proper hands. But others - especially those preoccupied by the inevitable corruption of republican regimes - also feared that this concentration made the connection to popular sovereignty more tenuous. If someone, by virtue of power concentrated, became impossible to remove by popular will, wasn't that a mockery of its sovereignty?

If politics was time and energy, freely given to the public, a lot of 18th century political thinkers (to whom were are still considerably beholden) sought to prevent it from ever becoming an actual "profession", because that meant valuing skills to remain in power, rather than skills required for disinterested public service. Some therefore came up with a variety of imperfect measures designed to prevent such concentration of power - like term limits, ineligibility, minimal age. Others, fearing public sovereignty more, embraced power brokers as a necessary intermediary. Paradoxically, it was the rise of mass participation throughout the 19th century that led to the creation of a professional class of "politicians", whose work was principally "linking" men of service and good pedigree, with constituted groups within the population. The growth of modern states and their bureaucracies, added the hordes of bureaucrats to the sort of clienteles that politicians now needed to interface with.

Is this still relevant? I think so. We can still hear echoes of the desire for politicians to be disinterested servants to the public, but we seem to be fumbling as to how to make it so, and how to actually express it in our cynical age. We still feel that politics ought not to be a profession, but in our time, when we value hugely skill in relations to outcome, we are wary of amateurs and dabblers. We want skilled people, but bureaucrats and administrators only have a tenuous link to the central principle of popular sovereignty.

Central to this conundrum, to me, is the notion of corruption, and the Trumpian moment has shown we are not well equipped to deal with the issue at all.

[Maximus]

The value of experience in politics is more than outweighed by the stagnation of having the same people in the same positions for 20+ years, never mind the accumulation of power. The problem with the tea-party/trumpists isn't their lack of experience: it's their ideology. The crop of freshman democrats brought in in 2018 has been mostly excellent.

However, rather than term limits I prefer an alternating mechanism where you can't run for re-election for a position you hold. At the very least it doubles the amount of exposure and ideas, breaks up the cycle of power, and has the bonus of not requiring officials to be constantly campaigning while in office.

[alfred russel]

*But I also tend to be sympathetic to the view that if one believes that money really buys elections, then you must think that voters are essentially gullible, which also means one must think they are superior to all those other "gullible voters" who are duped by that money, and at that point...why do you think they should have the voting franchise at all?

I do think that voters are essentially gullible, and I don't think I'm superior to them.

The presidential primaries were over by the time they got me, so I requested a republican ballot so I could vote against Trump. I was disappointed because he was running unopposed so I never turned it in. But the ballot was several pages long, and I had never heard of any of the candidates running in races with more than one opponent. I suppose I could have googled people and gotten "informed" and then voted...but that seems extremely vulnerable to the best funded campaign getting good online materials out there (including negatives against the opponent).

We just had a primary election for our county district attorney. He has been in national news as he tries to make big waves with BLM to save his career as he has 3 federal lawsuits against him, a state investigation on going, and he admitted to 14 ethics violations and paid a fine. 54,000 people voted out of 780,000 eligible voters. He lost--I didn't vote (didn't even know there was a vote).

[Tonitrus]

I also really think we need to make election day a national holiday.  We could easily give up Columbus Day for that.

But if mail-in voting grows even more, that will probably be less important. 

[Razgovory]

It is my understanding that most of the "tenure" advantage that incumbents have is the lobbyist/donation-industrial complex...giving incumbents an inherent money advantage.*  That is perhaps the best place (and the hardest one to solve) to level the playing field.






*But I also tend to be sympathetic to the view that if one believes that money really buys elections, then you must think that voters are essentially gullible, which also means one must think they are superior to all those other "gullible voters" who are duped by that money, and at that point...why do you think they should have the voting franchise at all?

Money influences everything in politics.  One does not have to be gullible to be effected or understand those effects.  From the legislation created with input from lobbyists, to spending decisions influenced by lobbyists, to the cost of running for office and the need to fund raise to cover those costs etc etc etc.  money makes the political machine go.

One would have to be pretty gullible to think money did not influence politics.

This is true, but term limits actually make that problem worse.  Legislators don't know their job rely more on lobbyists to write up laws.  Missouri has very strict term limits: You can't serve more than eight years in the legislature.  That's both General assembly and the Senate.  Combined.

[merithyn]

I also really think we need to make election day a national holiday.  We could easily give up Columbus Day for that.

But if mail-in voting grows even more, that will probably be less important. 

My state has 100% mail-in voting, and I still had to go drop the ballot off yesterday.

[The Minsky Moment]

Rhode Island has a part-time "citizen legislature" - historically it has also been a morass of corruption. It may be coincidental but I doubt it.

[Syt]

A little white boy was shot by his adult black neighbor. My sisters' timelines are filled with posts about the tragedy - more than, say the killing of George Floyd (not mentioned), or the shooting of Muslims by a neonazi in Hanau earlier in the year (one post; none after the nature of incident came out). It includes posts that the main stream media try to bury the story because of the races involved, and also this:



(no motive has been released for the deed, drugs might have been involved)

[Valmy]

This is just a troll and a fuck you. I mean it is not like this black dude is not going to be arrested for this.

[Razgovory]

Is the "all lives matter" taking up the cause of Ryan Whittaker?

[Tamas]

It totally misses the point of what's wrong with the cases of police rampantly and without consequence murdering blacks for the lulz, obviously, but it is true that if the races were reversed there would have been a bigger deal made out of it.

[Syt]

This is just a troll and a fuck you. I mean it is not like this black dude is not going to be arrested for this.

He is already in custody.

[Eddie Teach]

It totally misses the point of what's wrong with the cases of police rampantly and without consequence murdering blacks for the lulz, obviously, but it is true that if the races were reversed there would have been a bigger deal made out of it.

Police are killing way too many of all races. That's the point that should be made.

[Valmy]

It totally misses the point of what's wrong with the cases of police rampantly and without consequence murdering blacks for the lulz, obviously, but it is true that if the races were reversed there would have been a bigger deal made out of it.

Police are killing way too many of all races. That's the point that should be made.

A good point which is why I thought BLM would have wider support. Holding police accountable for this stuff helps every community.

[Valmy]

This is just a troll and a fuck you. I mean it is not like this black dude is not going to be arrested for this.

He is already in custody.

It is nice when a movement is already successful before it even organizes.