You are confusing some things, but your central point is still correct imo.
Philosopher kings != democratic representants.
Our societal complexity is a result of our cultural evolution and not caused by political failure.
Professional politicans in the most basic sense know their craft and their field of expertise well enough to articulate legalese that achieves something intended and does not get ripped appart by courts or adused by others. Corruption, etc. is not a contradictor of professionalism.
That said, why should randomly selected people be better and not get corrupted or misinformed? Even harder, why should they push urgently needed political change that impacts them and many other negatively (bad short term, good/needed long term)?
Your central point of civic duty and democratic literacy falls on all of us, and right now, imo it requires long term thinking professionals to reform child care, education and as a 2nd order, our media and state. Right now, the populus is not able to drag itself out on its own.
> Philosopher kings != democratic representants. Professional
politicans in the most basic sense know their craft and their field
of expertise well
Indeed. What we see though is a decline in the quality of
representatives who are forced to skew toward immodest grandiosity and
media theatrics instead of statecraft. They forced into a race to the
bottom to present a veneer of "expertise" in everything, and
pontificate confidently.
> Our societal complexity is a result of our cultural evolution and
not caused by political failure.
I'll hold my position here; Culture and politics are not separate. If
politics is the project to attain a "good life" (Aristotle), then
managing complexity is part of that. There is no "perfect" society
that is such a burden on its people it's unfit to live in
(Tocqueville).
> Corruption, etc. is not a contradictor of professionalism.
Your pragmatic slant maybe, but it is not a definition of public
office I recognise or respect. Integrity and professionalism are
bedfellows in my take.
> That said, why should randomly selected people be better and not get
corrupted or misinformed?
This is a very good question. The question, indeed.
I don't think I've even thought about it, but simply started from the
clear perspective (one that I've arrived at reluctantly through
observing the world) that a random person could do no worse than
those who seek power today.
Maybe that's what the "anti-elite" populists wanted to achieve - a
devaluation of politics itself. Ready to offer up their "technical
solutions".
> civic duty and democratic literacy falls on all of us, and right
now,
How do you think real professionals and experts, who are being
excluded from the decision making arena, can be effective in exile?
Working with these guys [0] recently I see the emerging idea of a
functional government in exile ready to "restore from backups" after
DOGE crash the system.
Philosopher kings != democratic representants.
Our societal complexity is a result of our cultural evolution and not caused by political failure.
Professional politicans in the most basic sense know their craft and their field of expertise well enough to articulate legalese that achieves something intended and does not get ripped appart by courts or adused by others. Corruption, etc. is not a contradictor of professionalism.
That said, why should randomly selected people be better and not get corrupted or misinformed? Even harder, why should they push urgently needed political change that impacts them and many other negatively (bad short term, good/needed long term)?
Your central point of civic duty and democratic literacy falls on all of us, and right now, imo it requires long term thinking professionals to reform child care, education and as a 2nd order, our media and state. Right now, the populus is not able to drag itself out on its own.