Do you think that someone that hasn't studied law or politics, but is educated and understands the role he/she is running for should be able to become a political leader?I certianly do. If the...
I certianly do. If the person is qualified enough. If he knows the backround of the office he is attempting to take, he is educated and if he understands problems that he can fix if ellected to the office he is running for, than I say sure why not. Now a days all we have is lawyers and judges or people who went to school for politics. Don't you thik that the people who go to school for politics might be missing something. Thoses people have been living a life as polititial for probably most of thier life. I mean most of them make good money, have nice things, etc. Well what about a person who goes to college for , let's say information technolgy and computers. If this person has an understanding of the office he is running for and the problems that he can fix if elected than why should he not be able to run for a political office. And not just run, but run and go really far, as to give hope to other people who may not have had the chance to go to school or college, but have lived long enough and seen and understood things to know that they can change something for the good if they only had a chance. Now I'm not saying that we should have a numerous amount of farmers, engineers and construction workers running our country, but I aam saying that politians aren't the only ones that can help this country
Among the Founders and the first Congress there were lawyers, farmers, merchants, artisans, old, young, highly educated, barely literate, born here and born in Europe. The eclectic nature of the group was both its strength and weakness; however, over the long term, the inclusion of varied backgrounds became the critical factor of a vibrant democracy. Our democracy in the US is not longer vibrant on the national level, at least, since those in Congress tend to be self-serving and not representative of those who voted them there. There is no "official" requirement regarding education, class, economic standing, etc. to run for office; however, over time it has become more and more an oligopoly, an elitist government, separated from the people. If we are to adhere to our founding democratic principles, a congress composed of representatives of the "people" and not special interest or elitist individuals would be best.
Public office should be a sacred trust, like Jury Duty. And like a jury, Congress should be composed of varied individuals who are there for a term or two to represent the various people who voted them there.
Sure. The only problem with that is that once elected, these people sometimes do not seek good, reliable, expert help in the fields in which he/she does not have knowledge or expertise.
Politics is an art and science. Our elected officials need to approach their jobs with a business sense (in order to balance budgets and spend wisely) but also with regard to the art of finesse, honesty, morality, and the value system on which this country was founded. Obviously, the decisions he/she makes will not please everyone. However, if he/she works for the greater good of the population who elected him/her, and not just for big business, big money, minority groups, etc., then perhaps he/she will be successful.
It's a fine line. Americans in particular tend to support candidates that at least appear ot be "anti-establishment". We reward outsiders with our votes, but then expect them to be able to accomplish things politically in a system that is not friendly to outsiders.
So we like to say we like candidates who are less political, but we expect them to be effective. I like such candidates because they bring a fresh perspective to government, typically with an eye towards progressive reform, and at least make the effort to clean up government and reduce corruption and corporate influence. President Obama is discovering how difficult that is to actually accomplish right now.
Most definitely. As someone who got a graduate degree in political science, I can tell you that doesn't make me any more qualified than anyone else to know what kinds of laws should be made. I may know more about how they get made, but it seems like the substance of the law is more important, and I don't have any special expertise there.
Sometimes I think too much knowledge of law/politics can get in a leader's way. It becomes difficult to "think outside the box" and imagine something new and different. I would prefer to put someone who is educated and compassionate in leadership positions above someone whose main claim is law/politics.