thinking about politicians’ positions on the issues gets me thinking about the issues, which is good;
my opinions are so far out of the mainstream that I prefer to vote for candidates who won’t win in the hopes that they will still receive enough attention to be noticed, and this also has more to do with issues than incompetence.
Nevertheless, upvoted, because it is an important position and well argued. I do wish that more moderates voted for competence rather than a mild preference on issues, but that’s not realy my place.
In fact, the politicians closest to me on the issues are often, being political amateurs, the most incompetent!
If you were on the board of a company, for example, or hiring faculty at a university, or otherwise in a custodial function, it would be irresponsible to promote someone incompetent just because he had similar values. Hiring excellent people who disagree with you is a virtue there.
But cases like that are different for two reasons: one, there’s more consensus on what constitutes “success” for a company or a school than what constitutes “success” for a nation. Two, an employer is really responsible for picking a good hire, and I’m not sure a voter is responsible for picking good politicians. The level of responsibility I bear for an election outcome is so low that I might use my vote for other things; to draw attention to an issue, for instance.
The politicians closest to me on the issues are often, being political amateurs, the
most incompetent!
I think we’re confusing two kinds of competence.
There’s political competence, the ability to raise money, produce sound bites for television, kiss babies, and so on. I think that’s what you’re talking about.
And there’s executive competence (or something), which is a little more like rationality, decision-making ability, ability to govern. I think jimrandomh was talking about this kind of competence.
I once looked at libertarian candidates for state and Congressional positions; their websites had errors (ranging from spelling to serious misunderstandings of economics.) That was what I meant by being “amateurs.” A former truck driver with his heart in the right place is not an expert on the details of policy. He might compensate by having a good work ethic and good sense, but he might also do a lot of damage by proposing policies that have unintended consequences he’s never thought about.
Well, sure. But that’s precisely why I don’t think “voting for qualifications” is a good idea.
The ways that a voter can gauge a politician’s “qualification”—his resume, his past accomplishments, even (someone suggested) his GPA—would make government insiders and perhaps private-sector executives look the best, depending on where you put your emphasis. It wouldn’t make truck drivers look good. If you’re voting for a truck driver, it’s either because you know him personally and know him to have good character (not true of most voters) or because it looks like he shares your values.
I won’t vote this way, for two reasons:
thinking about politicians’ positions on the issues gets me thinking about the issues, which is good;
my opinions are so far out of the mainstream that I prefer to vote for candidates who won’t win in the hopes that they will still receive enough attention to be noticed, and this also has more to do with issues than incompetence.
Nevertheless, upvoted, because it is an important position and well argued. I do wish that more moderates voted for competence rather than a mild preference on issues, but that’s not realy my place.
In fact, the politicians closest to me on the issues are often, being political amateurs, the most incompetent!
If you were on the board of a company, for example, or hiring faculty at a university, or otherwise in a custodial function, it would be irresponsible to promote someone incompetent just because he had similar values. Hiring excellent people who disagree with you is a virtue there.
But cases like that are different for two reasons: one, there’s more consensus on what constitutes “success” for a company or a school than what constitutes “success” for a nation. Two, an employer is really responsible for picking a good hire, and I’m not sure a voter is responsible for picking good politicians. The level of responsibility I bear for an election outcome is so low that I might use my vote for other things; to draw attention to an issue, for instance.
I think we’re confusing two kinds of competence.
There’s political competence, the ability to raise money, produce sound bites for television, kiss babies, and so on. I think that’s what you’re talking about.
And there’s executive competence (or something), which is a little more like rationality, decision-making ability, ability to govern. I think jimrandomh was talking about this kind of competence.
No, I mean governing incompetence.
I once looked at libertarian candidates for state and Congressional positions; their websites had errors (ranging from spelling to serious misunderstandings of economics.) That was what I meant by being “amateurs.” A former truck driver with his heart in the right place is not an expert on the details of policy. He might compensate by having a good work ethic and good sense, but he might also do a lot of damage by proposing policies that have unintended consequences he’s never thought about.
Intelligence and expertise don’t seem to be a reliable protection against this error either however.
Well, sure. But that’s precisely why I don’t think “voting for qualifications” is a good idea.
The ways that a voter can gauge a politician’s “qualification”—his resume, his past accomplishments, even (someone suggested) his GPA—would make government insiders and perhaps private-sector executives look the best, depending on where you put your emphasis. It wouldn’t make truck drivers look good. If you’re voting for a truck driver, it’s either because you know him personally and know him to have good character (not true of most voters) or because it looks like he shares your values.