The Fundamental Flaw of American Politics

[atvsamala]

The Fundamental Flaw of American Politics

There is something fundamentally wrong with the American process of electing a president. It’s that the candidates are running on platforms and espousing solutions that they know little about. And then we, the people, are voting on those ideas when we too know little about them.

Even if our candidates were Einstein’s, even an Einstein is an expert only in his chosen field, such as physics. He’s not an expert in economics; he’s not an expert in social development; he’s not an expert in immigration.

Why are we electing people who are running on a platform they are not experts at? And why does the entire country listen to their ideas and vote whether their good or not, when we neither are experts?

If you run a business and you are going to develop a new product, or you need to find a solution to a particular problem, you go out and you hire the best brains in that field. You then put them in a laboratory where they experiment, where they try many solutions, until they see what works. And then only do you implement it and build your business upon it.

We are not doing that. Rather, we are swayed by a charismatic person who has a good sounding idea that they can speak persuasively about. The ideas sound good; but they’re not necessarily the best ideas. They haven’t been tried it in the laboratory of experience. And then we’re electing that candidate and their idea and immediately committing our national course of action to it. This is wrong. This is flawed. This is a recipe for mistakes on a colossal scale.

What we need to do is instead of electing a president based on a platform, we need to elect a president who says, “I will elicit the best minds of the country. I will draw upon the brainpool, the immense intelligence that’s there in the American people, to find the best ideas. Then, I will find a way of experimentation, a laboratory of trial and error, to try these ideas. And only then will we commit the nation to them”.

This is a fundamentally different approach to the American presidency and to leadership in general. Now the American president is not the leader touting a platform. Rather they are an executive managing resources, finding brainpower and creating experimentation. Then, when solutions emerge and are proven, they become an executive in the fullest sense of that word, meaning they execute upon the direction that has been chosen. They manage it, they implement it, they build it, but they don’t come up with it on their own.

We need to tap the brainpower of the American people. We need to find a mechanism of communication and dialogue where the best ideas rise to the top. And even the experts don’t always have the right answers. Sometimes the best ideas come out of left field, from unexpected sources; from the young guy in the mailroom who seems to know nothing but has a fresh perspective, has an insight.

We need to elicit the experts, and we need to elicit more; we need to elicit the creative intelligence and spirit of the American people far and wide, educated and uneducated, experienced and inexperienced. And even wider, we may need to tap, we should tap, the brainpower of the world, for many of our problems have effects and causes that are worldwide. Many of “our” problems, such as the immigration problem, have their roots in other countries. We need to look for solutions there too.

And then we need to experiment upon these ideas in relative zones of safety to see if the solutions really work. Only then we should act. What we are doing now in electing a president is not only dangerous, but it’s stupid. We have all bought in to a collective decision making process that is flawed, that is wrong, and is recipe for making wrong decisions.

Lets wake up from this illusion. Lets get smart. Lets use the smarts of the entire nation. Great things are possible when we all put our heads together.

Kabir Jaffe
http://www.essencetraining.com
kabir@iucis.edu

[Cattraknoff]

Some people are more intelligent than others. The vast majority of those who are slightly more intelligent enjoy using said intelligence for their own gains, rather than for the people. They think themselves better, and thus entitled to more. There are very, very few people worthy of leading, and those people are never allowed to do so by the ignorant, selfish people currently in power.

A system like this might sound fine in theory, as communism did, as democracy did, but its implementation will prove it to be lacking. Corruption will seep in as always, and those who gain some power in it, will find ways to cling to that power, to the detriment of all save a few. Human nature as it is will not allow things to be much difference, until humanity as a whole is able to shed their stupidity and foolishness. A better system will emerge of its own accord, or our own will improve, if and when this is able to occur.

[PaitChow]

The candidates should be put on Jeopardy and asked questions about whatever issues they talk the most about, even if they get them wrong, they would learn something new every time, and if Rudy were still in the race he could just say "What is 9/11?" over and over again. Also if you get in the negatives your kicked out of America.

[Locke]

Very well written and interesting concepts.
However, what this has the potential, if corrupted, is create an even larger class distinction and bring us back to the same conundrum we are currently facing. A system in which the intelligent, implicitly, are better than anyone else would not hold up for a long period of time without the intelligentsia becoming besotted with themselves and subsequently become corrupt, or resentment and anger creating a large-scale revolt.

[Cattraknoff]

Time and again I've said it, and I'll continue to say it. No new system is going to be a magic fix to the problems we face. The only solution is for the people themselves to change. The people themselves must learn that apathy is consent to slavery, and they must take become willing to take control of their own fates. Then and only then will we be free. Then and only then will governments be just.

[Coll]

There is something fundamentally wrong with the American process of electing a president.

Honestly, there's going to be a problem with elections as long as people are involved in them.

And then we, the people, are voting on those ideas when we too know little about them.

I hope you aren't suggesting that the average American is an ignorant Neanderthal.

Even if our candidates were Einstein’s

If they were they couldn't run, he was born in Germany.

even an Einstein is an expert only in his chosen field, such as physics.

Keeping with the analogy, Einstein was actually an "Einstein" in many fields such as theoretical time travel and theology.

Why are we electing people who are running on a platform they are not experts at? And why does the entire country listen to their ideas and vote whether their good or not, when we neither are experts?

Because if you didn't there'd be a revolution and you'd end up with an even more pathetic leader. (see Napoleon III)

You then put them in a laboratory where they experiment, where they try many solutions, until they see what works.

Do you suggest we let George W. Bush put Mclellan and Scott in a lab, let them fight, then see whether the War in Iraq was winnable or not?

This is flawed.

I think Churchill came up with these ideas sooner, as evidenced in the following quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

This is a fundamentally different approach to the American presidency and to leadership in general. Now the American president is not the leader touting a platform. Rather they are an executive managing resources, finding brainpower and creating experimentation. Then, when solutions emerge and are proven, they become an executive in the fullest sense of that word, meaning they execute upon the direction that has been chosen. They manage it, they implement it, they build it, but they don’t come up with it on their own.

Do you think if we, for example, put a liberal in the White House under this system and gave him limitless resources to "experiment" and come up with the best decision, he wouldn't go along with his beliefs and go with the liberal choice? It's been proven throughout history that if a leader really wants to do something, it's as simple as ignoring their cabinet.

By the way, a cabinet is a group of people hired by the executive to help him find solutions and help to run the state. Sounds a bit familiar?

Sometimes the best ideas come out of left field, from unexpected sources; from the young guy in the mailroom who seems to know nothing but has a fresh perspective, has an insight.

If someone is an expert economist, he likely won't be working in a mailroom, mate.

And then we need to experiment upon these ideas in relative zones of safety to see if the solutions really work. Only then we should act.

Sometimes executives don't have that long to experiment in zones of safety before having to act. Time is something executives don't have in some instances. I wonder if Poland deliberated on whether or not to raise their armies when the wehrmacht rolled in.

Lets wake up from this illusion. Lets get smart. Lets use the smarts of the entire nation. Great things are possible when we all put our heads together.

I don't think anything is going to change in America unless the democrats get it their way and we have a socialist/communist revolution.

Of course, if Americans would get smart and have proportional representation in the senate and do away with the two-party system it'd be a start.

[PaitChow]

I agree that everybody needs to change but nobody's going to until it's too late, people are comfortable for the most part, at least in the states. It's going to take something drastic to change everyones minds on that, and by the time that happens it'll have probably been because of the institution of some unjust system, in which case the people revolt, start a new system and the cycle restarts all over again.

[Coll]

This is exactly my point, and I also think that in most cases it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Take the French Revolution for example: the French went from a perceived evil monarchy to a "Reign of Terror" in which noone was safe to another "evil" dictator to a seemingly stable republic government. (then to another inept monarchy twenty years later...)

For example, were a country to suffer some sort of fantastic event were to happen (such as a successful modern day Gunpowder Plot) which eliminated not only the supreme executive, but much of the cabinet and parliament of a state, as well as a strong blow to national morale, the state would be in the unique position for the state to possibly completely rebuild itself from a governmental standpoint.

So, hypothetically, if some sort of weapon of mass destruction renders the UK unable to exert any sort of government control over an area, I would be in the position to Mad Maxify the land, making it infinitely more appealing to the younger generation, stimulating immigration and getting the country off to a banging new start.

[brookes]

I think the fundamental flaw is with the MONEY involved in elections. Ordinary person with good acedamic skills and high GPA and lots of experience cannot even think of running for president. A person with influential contacts and HUGE amounts of donations can only run for president. After getting elected, Mr.president works in the favor who donated for him than for the people.

[Coll]

I love how you equate having a high GPA with other "qualified" things like academic skills and lots of experience.

How do you think people get contacts and donations? The whole point of politics is to get in with the right people. If someone can't do that, they're not a good enough politician to be president anyways.

As for money, there are programs and commissions set aside in the US to aid candidates financially in the primaries and general election.

Not to mention, by the time you're old enough to be president if you don't have a small bit of quid, you aren't that qualified.

[Locke]

I think you are over-equating presidency with power. Presidency is, for the most part, a honorary position in the sense that you would not be in office were your opinions on the wrong tangent (segment decided by wealth.) The president himself, herself, does not often need to make policy decisions of any kind.
Thus, so-called Einsteins would not be suitable candidates as they could be better used elsewhere.
Not to mention Einstein rated pretty high on the Autism/Aspergers spectrum, and had negligible social skills, and therefore couldn't "connect" with voters, as is the norm

[Cattraknoff]

I agree that everybody needs to change but nobody's going to until it's too late, people are comfortable for the most part, at least in the states. It's going to take something drastic to change everyones minds on that, and by the time that happens it'll have probably been because of the institution of some unjust system, in which case the people revolt, start a new system and the cycle restarts all over again.

The current system is unjust. The people are simply blind, because they have been taught to be such. When it does finally become blatantly obvious to the masses though, the chance for revolt will be gone. There will be no repeat to the cycle, not this time. Our new technologies will make sure of that. We change, or we will be slaves, with no possible escape. There can be no half-measures here, it's a simple choice, that everyone must make. If they choose wrongly, they will have to suffer the consequences of their foolishness.

[Cattraknoff]

I love how you equate having a high GPA with other "qualified" things like academic skills and lots of experience.

How do you think people get contacts and donations? The whole point of politics is to get in with the right people. If someone can't do that, they're not a good enough politician to be president anyways.

As for money, there are programs and commissions set aside in the US to aid candidates financially in the primaries and general election.

Not to mention, by the time you're old enough to be president if you don't have a small bit of quid, you aren't that qualified.

The problem arises when the "right people" are corrupt, self-serving bigots.

[Coll]

Well, I've always said that you can't serve others until you've served yourself. We need these people to be at least a little self-serving just to get them in position to perform well in politics, but when they continue to be corrupt and self-serving after they're in power is where the trouble begins.

[Cattraknoff]

Well, I've always said that you can't serve others until you've served yourself. We need these people to be at least a little self-serving just to get them in position to perform well in politics, but when they continue to be corrupt and self-serving after they're in power is where the trouble begins.

The habits of a lifetime are seldom broken.

[Gwendl]

The problem with any politics from student body president to US president, it all comes down to a popularity contest. It's not about who is best for the job or most competant. Most of those people wouldn't get anywhere, because they aren't flamboyant enough to catch people's attention.

The other side of the coin is that the political machine is able to manipulate the results in whatever way they see fit, and the media helps them in this cause. Case in point, Ron Paul. Now I'm not a fan of his, but I can see how they worked diligently to shut him out both from the national party level and the media.

In the end, the election is all for the rich elite to get their guy elected and the only reason that we are asked, is to make it look like we have a say.

[ronit3746]

There is something fundamentally wrong with the American process of electing a president. It’s that the candidates are running on platforms and espousing solutions that they know little about. And then we, the people, are voting on those ideas when we too know little about them. Even if our candidates were Einstein’s, even an Einstein is an expert only in his chosen field, such as physics. He’s not an expert in economics; he’s not an expert in social development; he’s not an expert in immigration.
Why are we electing people who are running on a platform they are not experts at? And why does the entire country listen to their ideas and vote whether their good or not, when we neither are experts?
If you run a business and you are going to develop a new product, or you need to find a solution to a particular problem, you go out and you hire the best brains in that field. You then put them in a laboratory where they experiment, where they try many solutions, until they see what works. And then only do you implement it and build your business upon it. We are not doing that. Rather, we are swayed by a charismatic person who has a good sounding idea that they can speak persuasively about. The ideas sound good; but they’re not necessarily the best ideas. They haven’t been tried it in the laboratory of experience. And then we’re electing that candidate and their idea and immediately committing our national course of action to it. This is wrong. This is flawed. This is a recipe for mistakes on a colossal scale. What we need to do is instead of electing a president based on a platform, we need to elect a president who says, “I will elicit the best minds of the country. I will draw upon the brainpool, the immense intelligence that’s there in the American people, to find the best ideas. Then, I will find a way of experimentation, a laboratory of trial and error, to try these ideas. And only then will we commit the nation to them”. This is a fundamentally different approach to the American presidency and to leadership in general. Now the American president is not the leader touting a platform. Rather they are an executive managing resources, finding brainpower and creating experimentation. Then, when solutions emerge and are proven, they become an executive in the fullest sense of that word, meaning they execute upon the direction that has been chosen. They manage it, they implement it, they build it, but they don’t come up with it on their own. We need to tap the brainpower of the American people. We need to find a mechanism of communication and dialogs where the best ideas rise to the top. And even the experts don’t always have the right answers. Sometimes the best ideas come out of left field, from unexpected sources; from the young guy in the mailroom who seems to knows nothing but has a fresh perspective, has an insight. We need to elicit the experts, and we need to elicit more; we need to elicit the creative intelligence and spirit of the American people far and wide, educated and uneducated, experienced and inexperienced. And even wider, we may need to tap, we should tap, the brainpower of the world, for many of our problems have effects and causes that are worldwide. Many of “our” problems, such as the immigration problem, have their roots in other countries. We need to look for solutions there too. And then we need to experiment upon these ideas in relative zones of safety to see if the solutions really work. Only then we should act. What we are doing now in electing a president is not only dangerous, but it’s stupid. We have all bought in to a collective decision making process that is flawed, that is wrong, and is recipe for making wrong decisions. Lets wake up from this illusion. Lets get smart. Lets use the smarts of the entire nation. Great things are possible when we all put our heads together.

[Gwendl]

In all fairness, the manager rarely knows much about the projects in a corporation. While I know it's a cartoon, Dilbert is full of examples that are true in real life as well. I've rarely worked with a manager that was experienced at the subject. Generally that is alright though as long as the people he has are competant and he listens to them and weighs all sides.

The problem is, especially in the Bush administration, is that he either ignores the advice, or hires people that are incompetant at the top. The keepers of the historical lab results are not in charge, and therefore cannot get their views heard if it doesn't fit their boss' agenda. So you wind up with an uninformed president making uninformed decisions.

Here's a radical idea. Instead of letting the president pick his cabinet, let the departments pick them. Each department would send their "secretary" to the White House that would represent their views. And if a cabinet member got too partisan, they could replace him. This would give the president a direct line to what is going on without the noise of political interference.

Just a thought...

[Locke]

In all fairness, the manager rarely knows much about the projects in a corporation. While I know it's a cartoon, Dilbert is full of examples that are true in real life as well. I've rarely worked with a manager that was experienced at the subject. Generally that is alright though as long as the people he has are competant and he listens to them and weighs all sides.

The problem is, especially in the Bush administration, is that he either ignores the advice, or hires people that are incompetant at the top. The keepers of the historical lab results are not in charge, and therefore cannot get their views heard if it doesn't fit their boss' agenda. So you wind up with an uninformed president making uninformed decisions.

Here's a radical idea. Instead of letting the president pick his cabinet, let the departments pick them. Each department would send their "secretary" to the White House that would represent their views. And if a cabinet member got too partisan, they could replace him. This would give the president a direct line to what is going on without the noise of political interference.

Just a thought...

I would rather ascribe the perceived "incompetence" as a "plan proceeding perfectly well as voters remain apathetic".

[jpd1975]

Time and again I've said it, and I'll continue to say it. No new system is going to be a magic fix to the problems we face. The only solution is for the people themselves to change. The people themselves must learn that apathy is consent to slavery, and they must take become willing to take control of their own fates. Then and only then will we be free. Then and only then will governments be just.

I could not have said it better myself. The populace blunders along worrying more about their clothes, their toys, their phones, gadgets and baubles... Their silence is acceptance to the fact that our Republic lies dead at the feet of a new corporfascist regime where our economy, culture, society and moral fabric are being slowly disassembled... What do we hear...silence.

This is exactly my point, and I also think that in most cases it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Take the French Revolution for example: the French went from a perceived evil monarchy to a "Reign of Terror" in which noone was safe to another "evil" dictator to a seemingly stable republic government. (then to another inept monarchy twenty years later...)

For example, were a country to suffer some sort of fantastic event were to happen (such as a successful modern day Gunpowder Plot) which eliminated not only the supreme executive, but much of the cabinet and parliament of a state, as well as a strong blow to national morale, the state would be in the unique position for the state to possibly completely rebuild itself from a governmental standpoint.

So, hypothetically, if some sort of weapon of mass destruction renders the UK unable to exert any sort of government control over an area, I would be in the position to Mad Maxify the land, making it infinitely more appealing to the younger generation, stimulating immigration and getting the country off to a banging new start.

The chance is gone, between the disarming of the populace, the brainwashing and training of the military to subjugate our own people and our currently precipitous economic state - I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel... and the ones that would use any WMD would be the powers that be, to inspire further fear in order for the American Sheeple to surrender even more of their freedom.

The current system is unjust. The people are simply blind, because they have been taught to be such. When it does finally become blatantly obvious to the masses though, the chance for revolt will be gone. There will be no repeat to the cycle, not this time. Our new technologies will make sure of that. We change, or we will be slaves, with no possible escape. There can be no half-measures here, it's a simple choice, that everyone must make. If they choose wrongly, they will have to suffer the consequences of their foolishness.

Blind and subjugated. Inoculated with vaccines that are designed to harm the chemistry of the brain and decrease intelligence and increase cases of autism and other mental issues. I'm sorry to say that the chance to change, in my opinion, is already gone. We are already enslaved...to debt that you can never repay, to employers that have you at the throat (unless you own your own business and are well to do) and to an ever increasing number of agencies and technologies that watch, listen and scan our every move just waiting for one mistake.

[Cattraknoff]

Blind and subjugated. Inoculated with vaccines that are designed to harm the chemistry of the brain and decrease intelligence and increase cases of autism and other mental issues. I'm sorry to say that the chance to change, in my opinion, is already gone. We are already enslaved...to debt that you can never repay, to employers that have you at the throat (unless you own your own business and are well to do) and to an ever increasing number of agencies and technologies that watch, listen and scan our every move just waiting for one mistake.

We may already be slaves, and by any measure have been for hundreds, thousands of years. But this slavery is not absolute. Until the time comes where we cannot control our own thoughts, cannot act as we will (if we so choose to), there is still some (albeit small) hope of change. The question is whether the populace would act, and sadly the answer is likely to be no.