by pandering to the voters, and making short-sighted decisions based on the goal of gaining power and votes. But, the plan to r... [show more]

by pandering to the voters, and making short-sighted decisions based on the goal of gaining power and votes.

But, the plan to require "training" for politicians has two large problems: 1. It won't be implemented because it would require that the politicians enact legislation requiring it (and in the US, amend the constitution). 2. If by some miracle it did happen, whose point of view would be conveyed in the training? This, of course, goes back to the fundamental question of what is the "job". Is it to perform minimal and only necessary government intervention into lives of the citizens, or is it to perform however much intervention is needed to satisfy the majority of interest groups? Would the training treat this as a dichotomy? etc., etc., etc. [show less]

I'd like to see changes in the way we approach politics, especially at the UN level. I don't trust the idea of the gifted amateur... [show more]

I'd like to see changes in the way we approach politics, especially at the UN level. I don't trust the idea of the gifted amateur. I want my politicians to have a good all round knowledge of the way the world works before s/he is allowed anywhere near political office.
Vets must have qualifications to ensure s/he doesn't harm animals before s/he is allowed to treat them for their medical conditions. Doctors must be qualified before being allowed to deal with people's medical conditions. Psychoanalysts and other professionals who treat the mind are also professionals and we expect them to be. There are few people who would wish to put their sanity at the mercy of someone who just thought they would be pretty good at dealing with, say, chronic depression and just set up shop on a whim. We are rightly concerned that animals and humans are treated well to cure them. The aim is to enhance lives at a physical and an emotional level.
It seems strange to me that we expect professional expertise at eh level of the individual, but at the societal level, we rely on the "gifted amateur" to settle international disputes that could lead to war. We entrust countries and their peoples to the care of politicians who may know nothing at all about political history or the ways societies function. It is felt that their very amateur status is a good thing. So an ex-maths teacher may suddenly be in charge of foreign affairs. S/he may know nothing at all about the countries of the world, their traditions, their cultures, their histories and yet we trust such a person to recommend a course of action in often terrifying situations where war may be the outcome if (avoidable) bad decisions are made. I find that scary. By analogy, it is like asking a witch doctor to perform a heart transplant – nowhere near qualified enough!
Why not make all would-be politicians study politics and societies and current affairs in the world before they are judged competent to seek office. Is that really such a bad idea? [show less]