Competency is Not a Populist Objective
Lance Rimpi raises some interesting points. Here is my immediate reactions:
1. Competency in government is not a populist objective. Rather, democracy requires public participation and reasonable outcomes for the common good. Even if one person -- perhaps Lance Rimpi -- could assure us that a monarchial system would provide the best outcome, populists would not do it. Populists believe there are many, many people of good will who are qualified to serve in all government posts -- including the Presidency -- and would provide a reasonable outcome for the common good.
2. Education doesn't matter. I would rather be governed by someone is wise than smart. G.K. Chesterton once said, "Democracy is Government by the Uneducated; Aristocracy is Government by the Badly Educated."
3. Populists are not concerned about the Miers' nomination because of points 1 and 2.
As to the politics, Lance Rimpi is probably right. You don't want to look like the stupid President or the stupid political party. So, you need to do smart things. We don't know if the Miers' nomination was a smart or dumb thing for the President to do yet -- that determination will probably depend on if she is confirmed and how she is confirmed.
1. Competency in government is not a populist objective. Rather, democracy requires public participation and reasonable outcomes for the common good. Even if one person -- perhaps Lance Rimpi -- could assure us that a monarchial system would provide the best outcome, populists would not do it. Populists believe there are many, many people of good will who are qualified to serve in all government posts -- including the Presidency -- and would provide a reasonable outcome for the common good.
2. Education doesn't matter. I would rather be governed by someone is wise than smart. G.K. Chesterton once said, "Democracy is Government by the Uneducated; Aristocracy is Government by the Badly Educated."
3. Populists are not concerned about the Miers' nomination because of points 1 and 2.
As to the politics, Lance Rimpi is probably right. You don't want to look like the stupid President or the stupid political party. So, you need to do smart things. We don't know if the Miers' nomination was a smart or dumb thing for the President to do yet -- that determination will probably depend on if she is confirmed and how she is confirmed.
posted by ssc | 10/18/2005 08:04:00 AM
Your comments call to mind a fairly famous quote by William F. Buckley that went something like "I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard University."
I fail to understand why Populists aren't concerned about the nomination of Miers. I agree that there are lots of people with varied background and education who could serve the public good, and serve it well. Miers might indeed be this person. But one could also make this argument if the President nominated another person who was a former ACLU general council, or the guy wearing the bright orange jacket who just rode by on a motorcyle. Either of those might serve the public well, and "Populists would not be concerned", but Conservatives should be. I'd prefer to stack the deck in my favor on such an important post, and I'd feel a whole lot better if there was a paper trail and not so many inconsistencies.
Maybe the President should consider our favorite Populist - SSC himself.
I have to agree somewhat with Festivus. Although we prefer our leaders to be anti-intellectuals, we want them to be competent anti-intellectuals.
No one wants to be led into battle by Intellectuals such as Socrates or John Adams. However, neither do we want to be led into battle by fools such as Randy Moss.
I would much rather prefer a competent anti-intellectual such as William Wallace, or Hannibal, or George Washington.
Post a Comment