Does our political system keep great minds out of politics?

[Smallc]

On the other hand, many people don't like when others are smarter than them...the beer question is absolutely stupid. I don't drink...so.....

[capricorn]

...the beer question is absolutely stupid. I don't drink...so.....

Yes it is a stupid question. But it makes for a good discussion.

[Smallc]

Yes it is a stupid question. But it makes for a good discussion.

That it does....

[Jack Weber]

I will discuss beer anytime,anywhere!!!

[Wild Bill]

Politics is the last place you want to waste great minds.

Putting a guy with 160 IQ into the political system would be like giving a Einstein a job at Macdonalds.

Whats needed in politics is skilled beaurocrats. People with good organizational skills, people with good communication skills... competent executives.

People who study human behavior have a category for such folks, Dre. Perhaps you've studied this yourself. They're described as those who are "good in groups" and there are some distinctive characteristics.

The usual model is any group of humans with a common task set, such as a business office, a factory, a farm or whatever. There are always those who are hard workers and those who have high individual skills at the necessary tasks of the group.

At the same time, there are almost always individuals who are not very skilled and whose productivity is rather below the bar. Yet they quite often are successful in getting promotions, or at least never receiving negative attention.

The reason is that their personalities are such that they are "good in groups". They are always friendly and have no trouble getting other people to do portions of their work for them. Their social skills are such that everybody likes them, to the point where no one pays attention to their poor work output.

If they add any survival value to a group it may be that they help make a more pleasant work environmnent but there are always dangers. Sometimes productive workers may notice what's going on and become resentful. They begin to notice that productivity and better skills are actually a detriment to promotion! They will never be "taken off the line" because it will mean less production so the group insteand will promote someone "good in groups". Also, too many people that are "good in groups" means that the overall productivity takes a significant hit, being greater than the group can afford.

Unless your're a total hermit, most folks who take the time to look around them will recognize such types in their own group.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Shwa]

I think you hit the nail on the head Borg. This is true, Canadians vote in politicians who lie to them with promises, and they don't vote for guys who tell it straight and tell the truth. They'll re-elect people like Chretien (i'll get rid of the GST!) and McGuinty even though they are lying sacks of crap. Seems Canadian voters have a short-term memory.

How can you tell the difference? It seems to me that Canadians vote for "guys who tell it straight and tell the truth" only to find out afterward they had been lied to by said guys.

Perhaps it is a matter of 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't.'

[Mr.Canada]

I thought Ignatieff was a great mind? That's what the socialists have been telling us since before he was wooed back to Canada from Harvard anyways.

[Shwa]

People who study human behavior have a category for such folks, Dre. Perhaps you've studied this yourself. They're described as those who are "good in groups" and there are some distinctive characteristics.

Hence the rise of the concept of the work "team."

The usual model is any group of humans with a common task set, such as a business office, a factory, a farm or whatever. There are always those who are hard workers and those who have high individual skills at the necessary tasks of the group.

At the same time, there are almost always individuals who are not very skilled and whose productivity is rather below the bar. Yet they quite often are successful in getting promotions, or at least never receiving negative attention.

But in a team theory each member possesses and admixture of hard and soft skills which is to compliment the "skillsets" of the other team members. So some members might possess better soft skills like interpersonal communication, writing ability or lunch arrangment skills. The interesting thing about soft skills is that they can be defined as being unique to an individual and still count as overall value to the team.

The reason is that their personalities are such that they are "good in groups". They are always friendly and have no trouble getting other people to do portions of their work for them. Their social skills are such that everybody likes them, to the point where no one pays attention to their poor work output.

Not always though. It is to the benefit to the team to have everyone recognize and acknowledge everyone's elses "strengths." Weaknesses are rarely allowed to be discussed and, if they are, have to be carefully discussed in such a way as to not upset the team member, not upset team productivity nor result in a harassment complaint against the boss.

If they add any survival value to a group it may be that they help make a more pleasant work environmnent but there are always dangers. Sometimes productive workers may notice what's going on and become resentful. They begin to notice that productivity and better skills are actually a detriment to promotion! They will never be "taken off the line" because it will mean less production so the group insteand will promote someone "good in groups". Also, too many people that are "good in groups" means that the overall productivity takes a significant hit, being greater than the group can afford.

This is true and has resulted in the phenomenon of "middle management" and the application of the Peter Principle. There are never enough "team leaders" and yet often enough, too many.

Unless your're a total hermit, most folks who take the time to look around them will recognize such types in their own group.

I think most folks have...

Edited July 14, 2010 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

For whatever reason intelligent people dont usually do well in politics. Its because the retard voters want someone they can "have a beer with" I think.

It's for the same reason computer programmers don't run the world.

[bjre]

Maybe but most great minds are intelligent.

For whatever reason intelligent people dont usually do well in politics. Its because the retard voters want someone they can "have a beer with" I think.

I guess most intelligent people prefer work at the wall street rather than play dirty politics games.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's for the same reason computer programmers don't run the world.

Like Bill Gates? Steve Jobs?

I'll agree with people about high IQ's doesn't = good politician. I suppose in the OP i should have said "great leaders" like CEO's etc., not just "great minds". Though i think a great political leader needs to be well educated and informed, not necessarily brilliant.

[Moonlight Graham]

The "have a beer with" question in polls has to do with how well voters think candidates or leaders would communicate and connect with them in their company. Most voters know who they would prefer to have a beer with. IMO most of those voters are certainly not retarded and they've got both feet firmly planted on the ground.

No, the retard voters are the ones who value the politicians they'd prefer to "have a beer with" above how competent a politician they would be and their views on policies etc.

[dre]

People who study human behavior have a category for such folks, Dre. Perhaps you've studied this yourself. They're described as those who are "good in groups" and there are some distinctive characteristics.

The usual model is any group of humans with a common task set, such as a business office, a factory, a farm or whatever. There are always those who are hard workers and those who have high individual skills at the necessary tasks of the group.

At the same time, there are almost always individuals who are not very skilled and whose productivity is rather below the bar. Yet they quite often are successful in getting promotions, or at least never receiving negative attention.

The reason is that their personalities are such that they are "good in groups". They are always friendly and have no trouble getting other people to do portions of their work for them. Their social skills are such that everybody likes them, to the point where no one pays attention to their poor work output.

If they add any survival value to a group it may be that they help make a more pleasant work environmnent but there are always dangers. Sometimes productive workers may notice what's going on and become resentful. They begin to notice that productivity and better skills are actually a detriment to promotion! They will never be "taken off the line" because it will mean less production so the group insteand will promote someone "good in groups". Also, too many people that are "good in groups" means that the overall productivity takes a significant hit, being greater than the group can afford.

Unless your're a total hermit, most folks who take the time to look around them will recognize such types in their own group.

Good post, and yup that pretty much nails it. Once in a while those two skillsets will be found in the same person but theres no consistant correlation between people with what I would consider to have "great minds", and people that have solid leadership skills. Those are very different sets of traits.

Iv seen cases where companies assumed those skillsets were the same, and they built their management structure by promoting their brightest and most creative engineers, and it can really bite you in the ass.

[capricorn]

No, the retard voters are the ones who value the politicians they'd prefer to "have a beer with" above how competent a politician they would be and their views on policies etc.

Then, I would call those voters uninformed and/or apathetic, and easily lead. And yes, I agree, a large chunk of our electorate really don't know what they're voting for when they mark the spot on the ballot. That's why we hear about good/bad optics so often in political discussions. And don't get me started on those who don't vote but complain when things go wrong with government.

[Wild Bill]

Good post, and yup that pretty much nails it. Once in a while those two skillsets will be found in the same person but theres no consistant correlation between people with what I would consider to have "great minds", and people that have solid leadership skills. Those are very different sets of traits.

Iv seen cases where companies assumed those skillsets were the same, and they built their management structure by promoting their brightest and most creative engineers, and it can really bite you in the ass.

Yeah, that's a valid viewpoint. Me, I guess I'm more jaded by my work experiences. The co-workers I've known that were "good in groups" were often NOT good managers! They just got by with "schmoozing" and never did much of anything that was positive to overall productivity.

I recognize management skills but I'm talking about "Grima Wormtongues" here!

[eyeball]

What the hell are you talking about? The system has gone through radical changes in my life time.

You probably think watching paint dry is an exciting event.

[eyeball]

It would be very expensive for the government to run an e-voting system that was used by a significant number of people and likely not worth the effort.

We could still vote on a range of issues twice a year using a paper and ballot system.

Post offices, banks, government agents, or just about any government building/office could be used as a voting center. Allowing for a two week period in which votes could be collected should alleviate any problems associated with traffic and the number of voters.

[eyeball]

hear hear.

Still, putting a voting button right in the face of everyone too lazy to get themselves to a voting station, or having people micro-vote on whether the dog-pound should get a new roof this year is a crazy and unnecessary change.

See above response to TimG.

[dre]

We could still vote on a range of issues twice a year using a paper and ballot system.

Post offices, banks, government agents, or just about any government building/office could be used as a voting center. Allowing for a two week period in which votes could be collected should alleviate any problems associated with traffic and the number of voters.

I think that could work for major decisions. Id like referendums on things like going to war, or allowing the government to sell public assets.

But it would cause real problems if tried to get too granular, and youd wind up with the public trying to micromanage issues they know absolutely nothing about.

[eyeball]

I think that could work for major decisions. Id like referendums on things like going to war, or allowing the government to sell public assets.

But it would cause real problems if tried to get too granular, and youd wind up with the public trying to micromanage issues they know absolutely nothing about.

Major decisions are certainly what I had in mind in federal referendums.

I wouldn't expect people in Toronto to vote on the issue of hiring a dog-catcher in my community, but that said I shouldn't expect people in Toronto to vote on who should allocate the fish my community depends on or how they should be allocated. For some bizarre reason though I DO have to rely on the people in Toronto to do just this very thing.

How on Earth could they be expected to know anything about these things?

[William Ashley]

It is a cultural question of: 'great mind'

You need to question the intent of politics to get to this.

From a perspective of the government - the problem is not so much with who is making the decisions, but instead how those decisions are working to acheive the goals of government.

The legitimacy of elections might be a question. Is elections Canada running non fraudulent elections? Are the elections canada staff actually returning the results that happen.

Thing is though that everything is political, every person capable of being a politician simply by stating it. The support of ideas, or integration of that person within the institutions of professional politics is another matter.

Before confederation the whole class of professional politicians was moot. Befor the revolutions in the 1800's it was largerly royal buearocracies - and you might say still is somewhat. With the assemblies that stemmed, the rich actually started publically gaining a point of institutionalization. In Canada we found leading sentiments clear grits or tories of canada west, the french canadians and different segments in the atlantic and out west. If we look on Canadian history we can see that often revolutionaries have been included in the political system - the thing is, revolutions are few and ultrapolice state governments rest. People are generally complacent with the system because it provides for the main drives whether the social liberalism, business interests, the labour movement, or plight of the french. Issues like republicanism are still weak subjects but with a global identity the question of form and function remains. The same issue that has predominated politics for 200 years, and beyond perhaps 400-500 years.

There are still activists rather than revolutionaries today - fighting for the same causes such as poverty, equal rights etc.. that found there way finally into being the turn of the last century - a general erosion of economic qualifiers existed.. but even today these elements are resurging with a requirement of having a residence, having ID, in some cases a phone number or mailing address, etc.. racism is replaced with nation-statism the same influence that came to being with the end of the colonial period.

I know personally that there is opression and repression even today - and even if it ain't government it is a social war of those who don't support free expression or beleif. The economics still drive voice, where laws don't repress the right of activism - limiting time and place of expression.

Our consitutional rights in Canada arn't protected by legislation, and yes it is intended to limit political activism. The partisan system gives the mass of political parties the advantage - the electoral system puts economic and class barriers (fees and requirement of obtaining a professional accountant to support the campaign audit)

So yes, it is not a free, nor fair society. It is a partisan non equal nation - Canada. It is an oppressive and hateful nation, a rascist nation, a fascist state. many people might not want to admit that, but it is.

So institutionally yes it does, but what is our system. Politics is simply voice and action - everyone has the capacity to create those things - the result of course is the same problem government has - if someone can project their voice to effect then they needn't worry about oppression and repression, only time - and effect.

Apologies on the typos: and if the minds are so great, why arn't they able to include themselves? Perhaps a great mind is more than just ideas but capacity to control.

Edited July 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[bloodyminded]

The idea that there are 'great minds' out there that would be happy to lead us to nirvana if only the system was better is a myth.

I agree. We love this idea of wise men with their elevated ideas leading us through sheer power of will and decency.

Not only is this a myth...but it leads to the nonsense of political mythmaking, in which the Reagans and Kennedys and Trudeaus and so on are hailed as gargantuan heroes of courage and vision...

....and I personally feel pretty cynical about such hagiographical servility to power.

[ToadBrother]

I think that could work for major decisions. Id like referendums on things like going to war, or allowing the government to sell public assets.

But it would cause real problems if tried to get too granular, and youd wind up with the public trying to micromanage issues they know absolutely nothing about.

So let me get this straight. One of our allies is invaded, and you want to hold a nation-wide plebiscite on going to war? Or HRDC decides to sell a building in Winnipeg, you want a referendum on that?

[charter.rights]

So let me get this straight. One of our allies is invaded, and you want to hold a nation-wide plebiscite on going to war? Or HRDC decides to sell a building in Winnipeg, you want a referendum on that?

The first one yes and the second one no. They are different. Going to war is a major decision, even if it is an ally.

[Wild Bill]

I think that could work for major decisions. Id like referendums on things like going to war, or allowing the government to sell public assets.

With today's level of technologies, war can start happening in moments. Do you really think that we'll have the luxury of having the TIME to vote on a response??!!

Hell, we'd all be dead or at least become a conquered people before our politicians could decide if it was a federal or a provincial matter...