very smart people in politics

[Sisyphus]

I decided to bring this up after it was (jokingly, I realize) suggested by ParanoiA in another thread that democracy be put aside in favor of drafting our leaders from the "super intelligent," much like jury duty.

 

I thought this was funny, since I have some experience in that area, and was already considering commenting on it here. Even though it was a joke and obviously won't happen, it's still worth talking about in a theoretical way, since it's an idea that in various forms has been proposed since the very beginning of political arguments that didn't involve hitting one another over the head with clubs. Even Plato proposed it in The Republic, which even though I personally think there's no way he meant it literally, enough people have that several groups have tried to "follow his instructions."

 

Aside from the obvious resistance that people would naturally have to leaders they didn't choose, it's still, IMO, a bad idea. Very smart is good. I don't dispute that, and I'm much more willing to vote for someone I think is highly intelligent. But super smart - "child prodigy" smart - could cause all sorts of problems. Namely, they've got a very high rate of emotional problems, have trouble communicating with "ordinary" folk, and tend to be very unambitious in the conventional sense of seeking power or money, so they'd probably just be trying to find a way out of it the whole time (much like jury duty, actually). There are exceptions, certainly, but a "draft" would be disastrous.

 

I cite:

 

*The fact that one of the stated goals of many "high I.Q. societies" has been combining members' talents for the good of humanity, yet apparently the only thing ever agreed upon enough to "combine powers" is that puzzles are fun. This is true, interestingly, from Mensa (98th percentile requirement) all the way up to the Mega Society (99.9999th percentile).

 

* A Short (and Bloody) History of the High IQ Societies, telling many of the sordid details.

 

*And "The Outsiders", a very good article offering a bit of an explanation.

 

 

One interesting footnote, however, is

this very informal (and possibly irrelevant) political survey from 2000 of the American members of the Triple Nine Society. It seems that for those who are interested in politics, a majority are pseudo-libertarians, though not necessarily in agreement with the Libertarian Party. It should be noted, however, that this is a self-selecting group both in membership (which is important, since the society itself is an anti-authoritarian splinter from another society) and in actually taking the survey. Also, entrance requirements in this particular society are "only" 99.9th percentile, or an IQ of roughly 150, which is not yet in "super genius" territory and which a couple hundred thousand Americans could potentially meet.

 

Anyway, I find this stuff interesting, and I suspect several of you will also, even if you don't have anything to add/accuse me of.

[Pangloss]

It is an interesting subject. As you say, I think the main concern is the moral/ethical angle -- just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean they have society's best interests at heart.

 

I always found compelling Robert Heinlein's solution in Starship Troopers -- you only get the franchise and the right to hold power if you complete service to the community through the military or (I don't recall if he included this option or if I got this elsewhere) some sort of other, non-military service ala Peace Corps. Everyone else gets basic civil liberties including judicial redress, but the vote and the power go to the franchised only, and they're a small segment of society.

[Sayonara]

Compelling as an idea, or as a solution? Given that the novel mainly explores the shortcomings of the system...

[Pangloss]

As an idea, not a solution. Too many obvious flaws, or so it seemed to me. Kinda like Atlas Shrugged. Good conversation starter, though.

 

In what way did you feel the novel explored the concept's shortcomings? I always had the general impression that Heinlein more or less whitewashed it completely, and all the criticisms were external. It's been a while since I read it, though.

[Sayonara]

I suppose I phrased that rather badly. I mean it in the sense that Heinlein stepped back and allowed the reader to imagine the shortcomings of the system of governance for themselves, rather than that he explicitly laid it out in the text.

[Pangloss]

That's true. In fact he could even be said to have encouraged it, in that the book clearly intends to spark critical thinking along those lines (e.g. those classroom scenes).

[ParanoiA]

Hmm, so did the movie do this book justice? I loved the whole political "sublayer" and how the media was portrayed - it looked just like how cable news might evolve, with all the spin and silliness. But, sadly, I had no idea at the time that Starship Troopers was based on a good book by a good author. I had thought it was just a cheap sci-fi movie to exploit CGI. Now, I wished I would have read the book first.

 

Anyway, to the OP.

 

That joke came from a suggestion by a very liberal friend of mine that sits in the cube next to mine. At the time I sure enjoyed the contemplation. It was brought up in the context of corruption though, and his idea did not use an intelligence qualifier, but rather everybody would be required to be in the selection pool.

 

That's where my initial criticism started from - potentially stupid people holding office. And there's no way around that either without introducing a subjective measuring stick. You couldn't use an IQ test, because then it could be disputed as a tool for corruption to manipulate the test to produce only certain ideologies or culture preferences.

 

But more importantly than all of that, even if you could somehow objectively only pick the super smart people - most political policy isn't really about what's "smart" but rather what's "preferred". Capitalism isn't "wrong". Liberalism isn't "better". Conservatism isn't "smarter". They are just preferences. There are benefits and consequences to the left and to the right - it's all about selecting which set of benefits and consequences are preferred.

 

So, it would appear to me that high intelligence is not incredibly useful, by itself. More like a tool to be used in predicting future events, consequences and benefits associated with various proposed solutions and policies - but not for final decisions on preferred policy.

[Sisyphus]

 

That joke came from a suggestion by a very liberal friend of mine that sits in the cube next to mine. At the time I sure enjoyed the contemplation. It was brought up in the context of corruption though, and his idea did not use an intelligence qualifier, but rather everybody would be required to be in the selection pool.

 

This has actually been done before, in classical Athens and other democratic Greek city states. Not only were all laws directly voted on by the entire citizenry, but government posts, including bureaucrats, judges, and policemen, were all randomly selected by lot. There were only two exceptions, both of which were appointed by popular election. First, the minister of finance. And second, the generals, of whom there were ten, all equal in status, one from each of the ten clans of Athens. All posts, randomly appointed or elected, were held for a term of one year. As for the "military," there were no professional soldiers. Instead, every single citizen was required to train collectively and supply his own arms, and take his place in the phalanxes or triremes as needed.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Sisyphus

[Pangloss]

One might also consider a "Roman Republic" variation, in which you have elected representation, but all citizens participate in the passage of most legislation (Romans voted by economic group as well as social/familial structure). Modern technology would presumably permit this, but of course there are some serious drawbacks, as the Romans discovered. Just because a citizenry is enabled doesn't automatically mean it is fully informed. Demagoguery was a leading factor in the fall of the Republic.

[ParanoiA]

This has actually been done before, in classical Athens and other democratic Greek city states. Not only were all laws directly voted on by the entire citizenry, but government posts, including bureaucrats, judges, and policemen, were all randomly selected by lot.

 

Yeah, I actually used Athens as my rebuttal. Well, to be clear, I'm dissappointed that Athenian direct democracy failed, not the "random draft" bit. Although, I don't know too much about it, I was "taught" that the direct democratic style was the inherent problem.

 

I also remember reading though that it was very successful for their short run, which led to the coveting by enemies.

 

Demagoguery was a leading factor in the fall of the Republic.

 

And yet another parallel to add to the list of our resemblances....

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, the source of Athenian greatness (its system of government) was also the cause of its all its problems, and its rather spectacular fall. They essentially invented cynical demagoguery, and demonstrated that a mob is capable of greater tyranny than any king. They flared brightly and gloriously, and burned out quickly.