Everybody Wants to Rule the World

[rowyn]

I don't want to be president.

No, really. I don't think I'd be very good at it.

I don't mean the campaigning/forging alliances/dealing with media/making compromises/ developing rapport/keeping voters happy parts of the job. Those are certainly important pieces of the job and America isn't going to get, much less keep, any president who isn't pretty good at all of that. In fact, I might be okay at those parts of it. My people-skills aren't nearly as bad as they used to be.

No, I mean the decision-making/being in charge part. The part where the president has to decide what the best possible outcome is, and then decide what the best possible way to achieve that outcome is, and then do his best to make that way the one that gets taken. You know. The ruling part of being a ruler.

That, "deciding the best possible outcome", that one I can pretty much handle. I can decide on goals like "eliminate crime and terrorism as much as possible" and "maximize individual liberty" and "provide equal opportunities to all people" easily enough.

But it gets a little trickier when I have to prioritize them: maybe I could eliminate some crime by putting cameras on every street corner, but that runs counter to my desire to maximize individual liberty. Allowing my police force and military to keep information from the press hinders freedom of expression -- but making everything public would make it all but impossible for security to do their job: the criminals and enemies would always know exactly what was being planned.

And figuring out the best way ... hoo boy. Now there's a challenge. What works? What doesn't work? Do I really need to compromise liberty for security, or do constraints on the former make previously law-abiding citizens mutinous, thereby increasing the amount of trouble I've got? If I want equal opportunities, does that mean providing equality in schooling? What's the most effective way to run a school? Are better school buildings worth the money, or should I spend that on teacher salaries instead? How do I measure a school's performance? Should government be in this business at all or would it be better if parents chose what to use their money for themselves?

People argue these questions vociferously, as if they knew, beyond a shadow of doubt, what the right answer was. You can find anecdotes, arguments, studies, theories, and research that will back almost any position, on hundreds if not thousands of decisions that our government makes.

I'm not good at distinguishing good research from bad research, or at digging through all the information at my disposal in an effort to arrive at the right conclusion. I form opinions based on my beliefs and what I do know ... but what I know isn't enough. Not to make me think, "I could do a good job at being president." Oh, sure, if being president was my job, I'd have access to more resources, and more time to devote to looking for solutions, and I'd hire other people to do research for me. I'd have advisers and assistants at my fingertips. Of course, then my decisions are only as good as the people I hire. I don't think I'd be all that good at knowing who of those offering advice I could trust.

No, I just don't think I'm cut out to be president.



I was thinking about this because I was reading a essay which suggested that the ideal political party should be completely transparent and responsive to the majority voice of its members. If the membership votes up or down on an issue, then the party representatives should mirror that decision.

And I was trying to figure out what I didn't like about this. Part of it is that I don't like the idea of majority rule, in itself. Simple majorities do not offer enough protection for the minority view, and a healthy republic needs to take care of minority viewpoints and members, not run roughshod over it.

And the other part is: a representative's job should not be merely to parrot the beliefs of voters. He should be sifting through his resources, studying available information, examining arguments. He should be taking the time that his voters don't have to study the issues under his purview. Because that's his job. The voters all have other jobs. They don't have time to do his job for him. You can't take a poll on the theory of relativity to figure out if it's true or not, and you can't take a poll on whether or not to upgrade school buildings to find out if kids learn better in larger schools.

Ideally, I'd like to find candidates who wanted the same outcomes I do, and who have the same priorities I do. And then I'd want to be convinced of their honesty, integrity, and diligence. After that, I should be able to vote them into office and let them do their job. Figuring out the best way to make those outcomes happen. I don't want to micro-manage my leadership. I want them to lead, so that I can get on with my own job.

But I find myself spending time and energy figuring out what way I think things should happen, and wanting candidates who share those ways.

I guess good help is hard to find.

Comments

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

A thought: perhaps part of the problem is that our social structures are simply too big to be controlled effectively by a single leader, or even by many layers of leaders?

[zaimoni.livejournal.com]

This is one of the better arguments for "reverse-colonizing" Nevada. Google: "Sagebrush rebellion". Include California to provide reasonable access to an ocean. Keep Washington in the U.S. so that the U.S. retains access to the Pacific Ocean.

I could see it happening if the leadership-of-that-time didn't have the stomach for a Second American Civil War.

[rowyn]

It'd still be too big. I dunno, I don't think that two smaller US's would be much easier to manage than one big one. A couple hundred smaller countries, maybe.

[zaimoni.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of one of my more flamey responses on libertarianism. Considering that he was trying to trip me into a flame war, it's strange he ignored this continuation.

[The power balance I describe, incidentally, is a very good heuristic argument against the immediate viability of an anarchocapitalist society.]

"You can't unring that bell"

[rowyn]

I do agree that size, by itself, creates problems. Size also solves other problems. I don't think people are willing to give up the benefits of being part of a large country -- or corporation, for that matter -- in favor of the benefits of being in one more easily understood and managed.

Obviously, I'm a libertarian and I think the government tries to do too much, and especially tries to do too much on too large a scale. On the other hand, I would feel less safe and secure living in the Free State of Emerald City than I do as a member of the USA. I want free movement of goods and people between the states and -- for that matter -- between the nations of the world. I want protection against military aggression, and I want it to be as efficient as possible. Ultimately, that means I want people In Charge of a large, powerful country that can defend itself and its ideals from outside attack.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

I've got a very good example for you of why rule-by-polling doesn't work:

War.

When you're not at war, it's easy to convince a majority to go to war. Any leader can use fear, ignorance, and doubt to convince people that 'for their safety' (or 'to right a wrong'), they need to attack country X.

When you've been at war for a few months, it's equally easy to convince a majority to want to end the war. As the number of casualties rises, and as the costs grow, the population turns against the war.

I'm sure that you can think of a half-dozen other examples of where following popular opinion will lead you in circles.

[rowyn]

And not only is it easy to sway the masses, but it's almost impossible to get the masses to understand a complex issue well enough to make the best possible choice. Take health care, for example. How many people in the world clearly understand the way the existing health care system works? Where does money for medical research come from? How are overseas patents enforced? What is the effect of importation/exportation and price controls on drugs? How does litigation affect the quality and availability of care? What motivates health care professionals?

How do I assess whether nationalized health services, or a national health insurance plan, would improve this situation? This is HUGE. I don't want to be in charge of this project. (I don't trust anyone else to run such a thing, either, which is part of why I oppose it, but there you go.)

I dunno exactly where I'm going with this. I hate saying "People are too dumb to decide for themselves" because, of course, we're not. But we pay government officials for a reason, and that reason ought to be "so they can govern and we don't have to know every fiddly detail of their job."

But where does "knowing enough to choose the right guy for the job" end and "micromanaging" begin?

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

Time for benevolent dictatorship! Cats rule, dogs drool!

What? Stop looking at me, we cats couldn't do that bad a job compared to you monkeys, right?

First off, cream will be the new White House daily morning beverage...

[rowyn]

Sounds like you've got that decision-making part down. :)

VOTE ROWYN!

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

The fact that you understand the complexities of the compromises between Liberty and Security and the rest of the issues, shows that you have a greater understanding than many who seek public office.

One piece of advice:
Should you ever actually become President (Hey, I'd vote for you.) Grab level_head and lady_anne as Cabinet Members or Advisors.

No, thanks

[rowyn]

I'd rather elect lady_anne or level_head directly. :)

Re: No, thanks

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

Okay!

[howardtayler.livejournal.com]

This is why when we vote for our representatives here in the U.S. we allow ourselves to be swayed by personality more than by voting record. We don't have TIME to second-guess our reps, so we make a character judgement based on relatively few data points (many MANY fewer than if we met the candidate and spoke with him/her for an hour) and hope that the leader we elect will be one who, when presented with information and decisions we will never be, would make the decision the way we would make it if we had the same information.

This is why I think Gov. Schwarzennegger was such a great choice. He assembled a team of experts that most people trusted as experts (if not as decision-makers), and convinced everyone that he'd be making decisions with their help, rather than with the "I'll be back" attitude he flexes so adeptly on film.

(note: I don't live in California)

This is why G.W. Bush is suffering in popularity right now. Many people are not convinced he's getting the right information or making the right decisions with it. Personally, I would still choose him over Kerry, because I think GW is more likely than JK to make the decision I'd make if faced with the same set of information.

This says way more about ME than about the candidates, and that's okay, because that's what voting does. It says nothing about candidates' fitness for office, and everything about the opinion of those voting.

--Howard

[rowyn]

You know, I'd feel better about character-based voting if it wasn't for that "very few datapoints" part. :/

And yet, reasonable people of seemingly good character with access to much the same information can still argue vociferously for opposite responses.

But I do find my own political leanings are most strongly influenced by the people I know personally who strike me as the most intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject. Because they're not commentators or politicians themselves, I find it easier to trust that they're speaking from a conviction based on research, rather than from hype or a hidden agenda or what they think will get my vote or sell the most papers.

I wish I could feel that way about a politician, but I think the world just doesn't work that way.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

It is intriguing, and disappointing to me, the extent to which that "relatively few datapoints" is being kept that way by the media, who would in theory be responsible for making that data available to us.

Spin is rampant, and cynical in a saddening way. And, more saddening -- that spin works.

The compromises that Rowyn writes of are, as she says, not at all understood by most people. And not at all possible to avoid by the people that must make them. Tough choices, and too often twisted for worst effect by a media that considers that the best effect for their sales.

Then the sort-of "other media" -- the Internet -- which has eliminated the barrior to publishing that generally kept nutcases from propagating their crap in large ways. Anyone with access to a computer and a currently unoccupied finger can publish the most ridiculous contents as fact -- and some of them do a fair job of disguising themselves as fact.

The result of all of this replaces the near-vacuum in which people's political decisions used to be made with a decidedly toxic atmosphere. But there is still much opportunity for data out there, and learning to read and critically think at the same time can make us tremendously powerful voters. It is to that end that I direct my thoughts, and maintain my hope about our bright future.

===|==============/ Level Head