What's this American obsession with being ruled by amateurs?

Post Reply New Topic

I was thinking - recently during this reporting about the awful situation in California, it was pointed out that term limits are partially to blame for as members of the legislature learn how to do their job, their time is up, and they are replaced by others of no experience.

Term limits, it seems, is part of this American fixation with being run by amateurs. Sarah Palin, I think, is favoured by many because she is the ultimate amateur, with no background whatsoever, who was doing her usual civic duty on PTA boards or whatever, and stumbled into politics that way...

This is part of the distrust towards "professional politicians" - people who are in politics and government for a living... thus, they prefer being run by amateurs. One would think that the running of the state and government is an important matter, too important to be left to amateurs, but for some reason there is this desire for that. Why?

Go figure -.- Maybe they think they're still "uncorrupted"? That they'll bring new views etc?

Unfortunately, this is not so. Often, they drop in after holding a leadership position for some major company, and serve that company in office, and then return to that company afterwards. Term limits increases corruption... as working for that major company is considered to be real work, unlike the running the government.

Moroever, a government run by amateurs has more trouble holding its own against lobbyists, special interests (overwhelmingly corporate, despite the demagogic use of that expression), and so forth.

It comes from the colonial period in American history, when there was just a general distrust of the monarchies of Europe, who were of course in power for life.

Term limits would seem to be a more recent phenomenon, pushed by the Republican Party in particular. It would seem also that those pushing term limits favour a kind of government incapable of amounting to more than a cash cow for well-connected corporations... a state of affairs that term limits facilitates.

Presidents do not necessarily rule the country with an iron first, but with a smile. So it kind of makes sense to have a f*cking moron in office and pull a hand up his arse, to use a metaphor.

As often seems to be the unfortunate case, you as a non-American are making a lot of assumptions about Americans xenon.

First off, not all Americans feel a certain way. There is a surprisingly wide spectrum of views here, and it is unfair to make broad assumptions, just as it would be unfair for me to say that, for instance, Europe is nothing but Socialists.

The reason for term limits is a healthy distrust of government and politicians. As was previously mentioned, it has it's roots in our general distaste for monarchy.

Your portrayal of many politicians as "amateurs" is also quite flawed. Many who rise to the ranks of Governor, for instance, move up through the ranks, and it would be very difficult to portray them as "amateurs" of government practice, they're only amateurs in the sense that they are new to being Governors, while they likely have been in politics a long time.

Er, if the American public really were cautious of having politicians for too many terms, wouldn't it simply be easier to vote them out once they've had their one of two terms, instead of using a law?

While I'm a strong opponent of monarchy, that one went over my head.

I talked to my dad one day about monarchy and republic. His reasoning went that without the not-so powerful monarch, it would automatically be replaced with a prime minister or even president with much more power, like in the US. I wondered why this would necessarily follow, but he couldn't give me a good answer.

It's all about avoiding having too much power in a few powerful hands, I think. I will have to think further on this subject.

That sounds about right. We do not need a permanent ruling class in the U.S.

In ancient Athens they filled the offices of the polis by lottery, sort of like jury selection. Anyone selected had to served for a limited time and no one was allowed to hold an office over extended periods of time.

If people screwed up they could be exiled by a process called ostricism. If enough people did not like so and so they could vote to have him leave the city state for periods up ten years. He still retained property rights, but he had to leave.

ruveyn

" If enough people did not like so and so they could vote to have him leave the city state for periods up ten years."

I wonder if we should reabilitate that practice... Might make people think twice before trying to double cross the populace.

Ask John Ralston Saul, its all through 'the West' - though I think he prefers the term 'technocrats'.

As exemplified by the multiple screwups of professional managers whose companies fall apart by major mismanagement, being "professional" does not guarantee good government. The basic concept of the US government was that it be divided into three branches that continuously kept an eye on each other in distrust and correction. When the power of corporations to corrupt infiltrated the system and bought a large portion of the politicians and lawyers and their crew it, in effect, over rode the governmental divisions so they respond to money rather than votes.

Well, it's not so much the American public as much as the founding fathers. Many of the founding fathers recognized that the average man is, let's call it "not very intelligent", and sought to protect said average man from himself to some degree. Of course, it didn't work out that way, but I'd say that's the idea.

The people in power who are screwing the country into corruption are not particularly stupid, merely motivated in a direction not favorable to the health of the country.

I agree with you. The people in power are not the "average man".

All the checks and balances were put in place to prevent smart, corrupt individuals from gaming the system. Unfortunately, being intelligent, they found a way.