Experience in Politics - Good, Bad or Ugly?

[Phi for All]

In most cases, you want people working for you to have experience. In the case of legislative political representatives, experience can also be a bad thing by continuing an ineffective status quo. It can even lead to ugly things like corruption, scamming the system, cronyism and misrepresentation.

 

We often see newcomers throw their hat into the political ring saying that they'll use their "new eyes" to more easily see what's wrong with the system and work to correct it. We know that bringing in fresh viewpoints can often invigorate business. Does that really work in politics though?

 

Term limits are favored by the vast majority. Why? So people don't make a career out of politics, and to sever ties with special interests. But term limits means even those who aren't corrupt abusers have to go also. What does that do for meritocracy?

 

I've always thought the best way to have fair representation was to draw our representatives by lottery, almost like a draft. Four years service and you're out. Plenty of ways to make it attractive to the vast majority (Medicare for life, great wages, a nice bonus on completion of term, probably still save a lot of money over the way it is now, and no campaign financing!). You'd avoid career politicians who don't really care about representation, but would you get the kind of ability to compromise that seems necessary at the legislative level?

 

When the subject came up in another thread, it occurred to me that it might be a good thing to have some representation from some of the young college grads in the Occupy Wall Street movement on Capitol Hill. They have the conviction of mind that could keep them from being seduced by the power and greed, they have the fresh ideas that might clean out the current corruption and they better represent what I would like to see our federal government do for its people. But they have no practical experience in politics. Is that good, bad, ugly or "other"?

[iNow]

That's a tough question. We face similar issues in business... What do we do with recent college graduates that get hired? They are invigorated, energized, passionate, and ready to make a difference and establish a name for themselves. They are also usually naive to the political games that take place, unaware of the way interdependent systems work together, they are not connected to key stakeholders and have little clarity on how their work will be received by impacted audiences, and they lack experience in balancing the competing demands of thousands of different viewpoints, perspectives, missions, objectives, and budgets.

 

Given what I've just said, I think they can and should play a greater role in politics, but I would be reluctant to elect one too young as a representative. It's amazing how aging and living more "life" helps us remove our heads from our asses about certain things. The challenge, as you seem to acknowledge, is that the longer you wait the more likely their practical selfish side is to take over and they'll ultimately prioritize their self interest (and the interest of their own family) over their absolutist principles.

 

 

 

I've always thought the best way to have fair representation was to draw our representatives by lottery, almost like a draft. Four years service and you're out. Plenty of ways to make it attractive to the vast majority (Medicare for life, great wages, a nice bonus on completion of term, probably still save a lot of money over the way it is now, and no campaign financing!). You'd avoid career politicians who don't really care about representation, but would you get the kind of ability to compromise that seems necessary at the legislative level?

I haven't thought too deeply about this and all it's complexities, but on the surface I very much like this proposal.

[imatfaal]

I've always thought the best way to have fair representation was to draw our representatives by lottery, almost like a draft. Four years service and you're out. Plenty of ways to make it attractive to the vast majority (Medicare for life, great wages, a nice bonus on completion of term, probably still save a lot of money over the way it is now, and no campaign financing!). You'd avoid career politicians who don't really care about representation, but would you get the kind of ability to compromise that seems necessary at the legislative level?

 

 

Let's face it - this is how we select our juries who have great power (potentially that of life and death) - and whilst many in the legal profession will have stories about terrible juries, they wont be as bad as the stories about judges

[Phi for All]

Let's face it - this is how we select our juries who have great power (potentially that of life and death) - and whilst many in the legal profession will have stories about terrible juries, they wont be as bad as the stories about judges

There would obviously have to be a few changes in the training process. Congressmen have a staff that can help them through the early parts of a freshman term without indoctrinating them the way the old blood probably would.

 

According to this article, last November 35% of the incoming representatives had never held elective office before. I'm not that impressed by what they've accomplished so far, but it shows that it's conceivable to have inexperienced representatives in these positions.

 

Would a system like this allow for better representation? It seems like there might be less party affiliation, which could require a representative to poll his/her constituents more closely. This might not be what most Americans want but if we want a better system we need to be more involved. I don't see a way around that.

[imatfaal]

Hmm I am not so sure - I think it would open the way for rule by civil servants; ie the mandarins will allow the parliamentarians get on with debating the latest criminal cause celebre whilst the civil service makes policy. i don't think it would stop politics being a dirty game - it would just make one side unaware of the best tactics and even the rules.

[Phi for All]

Hmm I am not so sure - I think it would open the way for rule by civil servants; ie the mandarins will allow the parliamentarians get on with debating the latest criminal cause celebre whilst the civil service makes policy. i don't think it would stop politics being a dirty game - it would just make one side unaware of the best tactics and even the rules.

So is it better to have experienced career politicians even though it could lead to cronyism and corruption? Would it simply be easier to implement some measures that would curb the special interest catering? Could those measures be designed to give better representation at the same time?