the problem with politics...

[Spadicus]

I've always thought there to be two kinds of people in democratic politics: the 'politicians' and the 'professionals'

Politicians are the people with the vote winning credentials whom you typically find at the front line of politics. They possess charm and a good deal of charisma, and great public speaking abilities.

The professionals are the people you find behind the front lines of a political party, the 'brains' who decide how to implement party policy and who have a limited say in what party policy actually is. They often have great experience in the field they advise in, for instance the former headteacher who works for the Education Secretary, and the retired GP who sits in the Minister for Health's office.

The media coverage given to political party conferences, and the importance of internal party politics, means that good speech makers and people with solid political credentials get to be the faces of a party. Being a respected doctor does not qualify you for the post of health secretary, and no more does being one of the top headmasters in the country qualify you for the education post.

These therefore bring up an interesting motion: "The problem with politics is that there are too many politicians. Discuss."

---

I would argue strongly for this idea...'politicians' tend to be manipulative scumbags who are appointed to their posts thanks to their political competence, their ability to win support. They have a nasty habit of saying things calculated to flatter and please - and find themselves stuck in tight knots when they actually have to back up their statements; then it becomes the job of the professionals in a government to rescue their credibility.

A great example of this (for me) is the difference between David Davis and David Cameron, both of the British Conservative party. I would class Cameron as a through and through politician. He has charm, he has wit, he oodles bucket loads of charisma, but his speeches are just awash with sentiment and nice sounding words. Davis cannot speak in public for his life. He is awkward and tends to stammer, but everything he says has huge amounts of significance. He outlines policy, explains policy implementation, and concludes simply. Had Davis won the election to be Tory leader, there would be no doubt about my political allegiance, but there is absolutely no way I can support Cameron. His sudden fanaticism for green issues ( ) is just another example of his political vote-mongering.

Imagine a government where the best men in their field definied policy. Imagine a leading surgeon, or a hospital administrator with decades of NHS experience as health secretary, deciding how hospitals are run. Imagine a headmaster who has turned a struggling state school around deciding the curriculum and teacher training issues. The ideal government is one without any politicians .

[ENSAIS]

I think that government beaurocracies house the "professionals" you are speaking of...

How could a person running for executive office possibly be an expert in all the areas that he will make decisions about? The bottom line is that Congress basically farms out the task of being an expert by instead getting expert testimony, and taking that in conjunction with the will of their constituents (or if you are cynical, the interest groups lobbying them) to come up with an informed opinion when forming legislation or voting for or against it.

Otherwise, the only current member of the Senate qualified to in any way address questions of health would be Sen. (Dr.) Frist, the only Senator with an MD. But the reality is that we are not electing persons to themselves be the subject matter expert on every issue they will face. We are electing a politician, who promises his constituents to champion the issues they care about [Like Cameron's newfound fanaticism for green issues, or "Homeland Security" in the US]... and together with likeminded and like-motivated Congressmen, get informed during the hearings process of finding out "what is wrong/ how to fix it" and then by the legislative process of horse-trading and jockeying, work out a bill that will actually have enough support to pass AND be signed into law to address the problem his constituents [or cynically, his lobbey group] wanted addressed.

A subject matter expert professional Doctor seems to me to be singularly unsuitable for the dirty work of lawmaking/ horsetrading/ selling you soul (and vote) to be elected and stay into power...

Any merit to that or did I just say "no" 'cause you said "yes"?