I want someone who can ASK and LISTEN to skilled professionals, detect and reject bullshit from scam artists, and feels a responsibility to make decisions that benefit their constituents.

It is a skill. You need professionals in that skill

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

If you truly believe the ability to listen to professionals, ask questions, and make decisions based on direct information is only something highly paid professionals can do, I don't know how to begin to address the massive gap in our premises. I assume you're not a doctor, but when the doctor gives you health information and options, you don't fumble around helplessly. If you hire someone to build you a house and they present you with multiple options, I assume you're not an architect either, but you don't panic and decide to live in a tent instead.

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There is a huge difference between deciding for yourself and deciding for a big group of people you don’t really know.

The first can be solved by intuition and emotional thinking (I don’t want to have surgery because I’m more worried about it more than about taking medicines for a much longer time, I want a two story house because it looks good…). While taking care of a nation is wildly different. You are confronted with massive, intertwined systems, in which many people that live life completely different than yours are affected. You have to constantly challenge your assumptions and compare them to a mountain of data. Yes, you have advice, but each advice always relates to a small section of the whole problem.

While such critical thinking skills can be learned in many ways (and they often elude our politicians) it usually require a higher education degree and quite some experience after that to develop. People that have honed this skill are valuable in the job market, and therefore should receive appropriate compensation.

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I was right there with you until you started talking about appropriate compensation.

Politics is a service, like military service. The military is compensated well, but you certainly can't argue they're doing better than a professional would with the same skills. The same applies to political office. It is an act of self-sacrifice for the betterment of your constituency. If the fact of serving your constituents is not enough, I don't care about your skillset - I don't want you in the office. This should be a calling - not a career.

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

As someone that followed that mindset, and got stuck in positions that are much lower payed than the private sector, that refined my skills to an absurd level just to get payed around median level… that’s why I’m looking for jobs outside the public sector, that’s why basically all my colleagues feel burned out and unappreciated. A good read in this aspect: https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/

A bit of sacrificing is okay, but as a politician you are already sacrificing a lot of your personal life (long, constant trips that make difficult to maintain contracts outside of work, lots of after hours events that affect your social life, often having to full on move for your job…) How far does self sacrifice need to go?

As a side: I also would like all other public sector jobs to be much better payed.

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I absolutely won't disagree with you that public sector pay should be higher, particularly for publicly important positions, but let's also be clear that politicians and public employees aren't actually the same thing. A public employee is committing long-term to doing a full-time job in a particular domain as a lifetime career.

Political offices are largely intended to be temporary caretaker positions to be done as a self-sacrifice. Career politicians have become the rule recently, but it is by no means by intent of design.

There is a huge difference between these two roles.

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So you are talking about a full overhaul of the system, not just a change on how the politicians are payed.

In your view, who would be a good politician? Because a short-term self sacrificing position works in the context of a “noble” ruling class that has the skills and connections to rise to the occasion at any time. But I doubt that is what you are advocating. So, I don’t see how a middle class could produce enough talented-but-not-career politicians. Would you mind discussing that?

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Not at all. The system is already meant to be a part time, limited position. Senate terms are 6 years. Presidential terms are 4 years. Representatives are 2 years. All local and state roles have terms. Most LIMIT the number of terms. It's not a job you're supposed to do forever.

Even Congress' schedule is based on the idea that the members of Congress are doing this part of the year and then going back home to do whatever they did before. I'm not saying people that are good at the job shouldn't get to continue, but it's not DESIGNED to be a full-time, life-time job.

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 1 points 2 days ago

That’s the theory, but we see the practice being different. And I ask how you plan on fixing it. A job with a lot of requirements, very demanding, that you propose to underpay with respect to the private sector and that, after wrecking your life for a couple of years, kicks you out. Other than martyrs and corrupted people, I don’t know who would apply for it. And corruption is more widespread than martyrdom

[–] Lucelu2@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

Congressional representatives have a service of 2 years. This is not onerous. They can come from all walks of life but should probably go back to private life after their term unless they have provided such exemplary service they deserve a second term. However, I feel they should be term limited. If they wish to continue to serve the public, they can run for the Senate or run for office in their state/locality.

Senators have a service of 6 years which is a bit longer but then, their function is more professional... like they have to hold hearings, investigations and approve for executive level agency leadership and judges. They do need more seasoning, education and a higher public service commitment. They should have a clear understanding of the Constitution and high ethical standard for themselves and others. I don't think they should serve for more than one term, 2 terms tops.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That folksy wisdom of applying common sence and do what's right doesn't work when it's about faith of a millions. If I hire shitty builder because he was too convincing, and then chose wrong option because I am indeed not an architect, worst case scenario my house will be a bit fucked. If a politician makes the same mistakes, millions of people will die. So for a regular shmo this skill has small consequences and doesn't have to be this strong.
You're saying "listen to professionals" as if there is always one professional with one opinion and your options is to listen to him or not, but it's almost never the case in complex questions.

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

I'll say it again...

An expert/professional in one field does not have special knowledge that makes them better at making decisions in another. It just doesn't. And finding the wrong experts is a miss that a professional could JUST as easily make.

And I'm sorry, for the VAST majority of elected offices, the stakes just are not that high. No city council member in a city of a few hundred thousand is making decisions that affect the fate of millions. But it's EXTREMELY easy for someone with greater ambition than that city council to sell out the constituents of that city in exchange for aid to get to a higher office, and it happens ALL THE TIME.

I'll say it again... a reasonable, competent individual with low ambition and good decision making is, all else being equal, a better choice.