3 posts tagged “democracy”
Tonight is the night when the dead become living, when we face our darkest fears and confront them, when we ourselves become the things of which we are terrified.
Okay, it's also a night to drink too much and stuff yourselves with candy, but when isn't?
So here are a few Halloween blog treats for you:
If your favorite holidays are Halloween and Easter, just because of the candy... According to the Associated Press, researchers have shown that people who crave chocolate are more likely to have in their system high levels of a type of bacteria that thrives on chocolate. So, is it possible that the chocoholic bacteria is what makes you crave chocolate, thus relieving you of all guilt for eating that eighteenth tootsie roll in a row? No, as any statistician knows, correlation does not prove causation, and researchers are unsure if the bacteria make the people crave chocolate, or if it's just that people who eat more chocolate are creating a happy environment for the pro-chocolate bacteria to flourish.
Attack of the Killer Tomato. Scientists have created genetically engineered plants that actually consume toxins, according to the National Geographic News. This could be a boon for cleaning up areas that have ground soil contaminated by pollutants, but environmentalists are concerned about the unknown dangers of genetically engineered plants. If the genetically engineered plants were to "escape" and reproduce on their own, they may push out native, natural species, and mutate. Who knows what they could turn into. If they eat toxins, they'll probably think humans are downright tasty.
Scared of the Federal Government? Well, now, I don't go in for conspiracy theories, but this one has me worried. According to Slate.com, earlier this year President Shrub issued a National Security Presidential Directive, the 51st of it's kind, parts of which are so secret that not even congressional oversight committees in charge of national security are allowed to read them. The parts that aren't so scary that they can't be made public are terrifying. NSPD-51 is a declaration by the President giving himself the power to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure the "continuation of government" (presumably including the suspension of elections and the end of his term) in the event of a "catastrophic emergency." He gets to tell us what constitutes a "catastrophic emergency." Scared yet?
And, in honor of Halloween, I reprint here my favorite scary haiku:
Scrambling from fresh graves
Zombies go in search of brains.
Hell if they get mine!
Yesterday, I posted about how a recent scientific study indicated that many people make their decisions between political candidates based on their first impressions of the person's competency, based solely on their appearance. As this logically leads to a conclusion that many people have already arrived at, namely that democracy is a highly imperfect form of government, I asked people to suggest forms of government that might be better.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill
This isn't to say that I would rather the nations of the world have remained as monarchies, and dictatorships and theocracies certainly are much worse systems to live under than democracies. Direct democracies can be tyrannical for anyone in the minority, and don't work well for governments larger than municipalities, anyway. To fix this the first part, you have a Constitution that guarantees the rights of minorities (and all of the citizens), protecting them from the excesses of transient majorities. To fix the second part, you make it a representative democracy, where the people elect individuals to run the government on their behalf.
So, representative democracy with constitutional protections for minorities is the best, safest system in the world. And yet, it's far from perfect. Leaders in a representative democracy, like what we have in the U.S., are based much more on the first impression, wealth, and connections of the candidates, rather than their abilities or even their stance on the issues, and lend themselves well to the politics of fearmongering and hyperbole.
Just as the Constitution was written with the idea of "checks and balances" incorporated into its structure, it's time we start building in competency and relevance as integral concepts. Here's my solution.
Meritocracy: (noun) [From WordWeb]
1. A form of social system in which power goes to those with superior intellects.
2. The belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.
In a meritocracy, individuals are chosen for their ability to do a job, rather than irrelevant factors such as their wealth, connections. The first step toward this would be to include job requirements for political office. Almost seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Every other job in the country requires the applicant to have some sort of pre-qualifying knowledge, skills, or abilities. Why don't we set minimum requirements for political office? Did you know that in most parts of the U.S., a person can run for Sheriff without having any law enforcement background? In some counties, the position of Medical Examiner is elected, and you don't have to have any medical or forensic experience to run. The same thing goes for District Attorneys. There was a time when there wasn't much in the way of specialized knowledge necessary to do these jobs. Now there is; it's times to change it.
But how about other elected positions? How about starting with requiring high school diplomas or GEDs to be on city council? Seems reasonable to me. Bigger cities, with more candidates, may require a bachelors degree, preferably in something relevant, like political science, business, civil engineering, something to indicate that they know a little more than the average guy off the street about how to run a city.
The same applies to offices at the state or federal level. Members of congress should have at least master's degrees in something relevant to running the government or writing laws about the issues. As it is, Congressmen and Senators get almost all of their information from lobbyists, which is why they are the ones really running the country now.
The President should be one of the smartest people in the country. Doesn't that just make sense? Wouldn't you want the guy running the entire show to be in the top one or two percent? He should have to have a PhD in some relevant field.
Judges should have to have a law degree. "You mean they don't have to now?" you cry. No, they don't. It usually works out they do, but they don't have to, and local judges are often elected without any particular experience or education to get in - just a lot of friends. Obviously, the same should be true of federal judges and the Supreme Court.
The next question is, among the qualified candidates for what are now elected positions, how do we choose? Let's take a lesson from the business world - make them apply for the job. Each candidate should have to fill out an application, listing prior experience, education, and additional qualifications. Then, they should have to write essays on each of a number of major issues, saying what they would do concerning that issue if they get into office. All of this information would be available to all of the voters on line or in paper format, and then the candidates would not be allowed to campaign, at the risk of being disqualified. Since public speaking is obviously part of the job, public debates would be arranged for the final candidates. Without party-based campaigns or fund-raising, political parties would become almost irrelevant.
I also think voters would have to have some sort of minimum qualifications. I'm thinking a High School degree or GED, at least.
Now, to make all of this work, education has to be available to all Americans. It needs to be free, including the post-secondary, graduate, and doctoral levels. Otherwise, the wealthy and well-connected would still have better access to the political system. Besides, if we want to stay competitive with other industrialized countries, this is something we need to do, anyway.
Will we ever make these kinds of reforms? Probably not. I realize they would probably be viewed as elitist, but maybe someday we'll see the necessity of selecting our leaders based on more than first impressions and emotional impact.
Go.
Synopsis of a Scientific American article today, "How to Win an Election: Make a Good First Impression (in Less than 250 Milliseconds)":
A study by Princeton University researchers indicates that most voters make their candidate selections based on first impressions of a candidate's appearance of competence, and that they are forming that impression within the first 1/4th of a second of seeing them.
"All of the action goes on in the first 250 milliseconds of exposure, and then there's not much going on," said one of the researchers.
While the study still doesn't explain how George "I look like a confused monkey" Bush won in 2004 (we know how he won in 2000), it really doesn't bode well for democracy in general. I'm thinking the introduction of a new system is in order.
Looks Competent to Me
I'd sooner vote for this guy.
What would be your ideal system of government?
