Thread: Political backgrounds: Who should run the world?

Think of the people who run the world's largest governments, as in the legislative sector. What kinds of jobs did these people generally have before taking part in federal legislation? Clueless me would like to think they were lawyers, businessmen, or something like that, but I'm not so sure.

I'm basically asking where most legislators come from in terms of prior career backgrounds. Thanks in advance for answers.

Generally speaking there are 4 main groups. Legal practice, political party employment, particular interest groups (education, environment, etc), representative interest groups (business or union associations).

Of course, there are huge differences in educational backgrounds. When you look at countries like Japan and most English speaking countries, a 'business representative' background person in Japan is much more likely to have engineering or other technical qualifications rather than the law / MBA qualifications more common for the same group of people in the USA or Australia.

The CEO'S of Multi-Nationals, Big International Corporates and their Boardrooms, then their Shareholders. Power, Ego, Positioning, Greedy( for greedy read stupidity and ignorance). These Factors Play the most important role in the way that Economies are allowed to proceed and develope. So, at this time, we are still beholding to Large Lending Institutions--Banks etc. The aquisition of Wealth through excessive profiteering is the dominant driving force. Governments elected by the people give some hope for a fairer sharing of the profits from exploiting a Nations Resources. But only so far as strong Idealistic Leaders are available and are Elected by the People. Create a brainy people. And try and understand the Lobbying by those who Gobble up any Opportunity to become wealthy. Through owning interests in the Media and Mass Advertising Outlets their influence is out of all proportion of what is seen to be fair by ordinary people. Keep them Drunk and Pregnant was the cry by the rich and powerful( Land and Estate owners) in the 19/20 Centurys. Always been the same, well for the last 14,000 years. westwind.

Originally Posted by epidecus

Think of the people who run the world's largest governments, as in the legislative sector. What kinds of jobs did these people generally have before taking part in federal legislation? Clueless me would like to think they were lawyers, businessmen, or something like that, but I'm not so sure.

I'm basically asking where most legislators come from in terms of prior career backgrounds. Thanks in advance for answers.

I believe in America most democrats are lawyers, and most republicans are CEO's.
So in America lawyers and CEO's run our federal government.

Here's a run down of America's Congress...actually a pretty diverse group. http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL)PL%3B%3D
[img]http://oncampus.mpr.org/files/2011/0...mb-500x176.jpg[/img]

Thanks for the responses guys. And especially Linx for the data image, which is what I was looking for. I'm pretty surprised that there's a significant percentage of scientific/technological backgrounds... What a shame however that the most prominent figures in DC love to spew terribly ignorant anti-scientific remarks.

I don't think these scientific/technological backgrounds mean anything.
These backgrounds never come into use, because congressmen/women do not write Americas laws.

America's laws are written by lawyers from corporations like GE.

The question should be, what backgrounds do corporate lawyers have?

Lawyers from large corporation's write/make America's laws, not congress members. (literally)

Ron and Rand Paul are medical doctors but they don't know shit about Economics, social issues, Law or History...subject matter which all congressmen should be fluent in...

I see no engineers, farmers, tradesmen, scientists , law enforcement or artists there. It seems to be run by only college grads for the most part. To bad there's not more people involved that have better common sense and creativity than those that are there today. It might be allot different if there were more than college types running the show, IMO.

All 3 of the UK's main political parties have leaders that were 'Spads'(special advisers) staight form university. This now seems the main route to political power in the UK.

I think the test should be as follows:

Do you believe in gay marriage?

Do you support a Progressive political agenda?

Do you believe in separation of church and state?

Do you believe in Evolution?

Do you support universal background checks for guns and other weapons?

Do you believe that indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens is unlawful?

Do you believe that war should always be a last resort solution?

Do you believe that civil rights are far more important than private property rights?


Do you believe that Corporations are not people and that the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision is therefore unconstitutional?

If any of these questions are answered "No", the person should automatically be ineligible to hold office.

Also, do you read at least one History or Law related book per week?

Mike, it must be tough never getting a chance to vote...or do you like most Americans just hold your nose every two years.

Are you kidding me? I thought that you, of all people, would be an outspoken Liberal. Someone with a strong background in science and a reverence for empirical data cannot be a conservative without some major cognitive dissonance going on inside their head.

I didn't say I was conservative.

I've never had a chance to vote on ANYONE who had all my views and thus end up measuring and deciding to vote for best candidates unburdened by specific litmus test. Most would consider me a moderate republican as well as a libertarian where governments at any level should have strong compelling reasons before daring interfere in our private lives--whether that be in the bedroom, raising our kids, or running our businesses.

I didnt want to harp on it, but our political systems date back to primitive times where human beings were traded as slaves like cattle and people didnt even know there was a planet pluto or what a neuron was.

Even the Greek antiquity's democratic mechanism of an actual random drawing of citizens might be better than the official-bribery media-theater-election of mini-despots that can run on a lie and be relelected because the wedge issue hes aggregated with makes the other duopoly-collusion-equally-corrupt a non-starter.

Im rooting for free education, transparency and direct democracy as a basis for a overhaul of the corrupt to the core party system.

Also if you have secrecy(government secrets, propaganda to manipulate public opinion,m etc), extreme disparity in economic influence/power, and ubiquitous Hierarchy (agency, corporation), then democracy is kind of moot (like a sword made of paper, or a hammer made of play-dough, you can "call" it a sword or a hammer, but...) .

Originally Posted by mikepotter84

Are you kidding me? I thought that you, of all people, would be an outspoken Liberal. Someone with a strong background in science and a reverence for empirical data cannot be a conservative without some major cognitive dissonance going on inside their head.

Mike: You've a highly biased/polarized concept of liberal vs conservative.

Would disbanding the standing land army be liberal or conservative?
Would adhering to the freedoms embodied in the constitution be liberal or conservative?
Would wanting an end to prison sentences for those who "commit" victimless crimes be conservative or liberal?
Would abolishing needless regulations and opressive laws be liberal or conservative?
Would holding governmental employees to the highest standards under our laws be liberal or conservative.
You're beginning to seem duckish here.
....
"...believe in gay marriage?"
like believe in pixie dust?

It is most likely that most people are a complex hodgebodge of "liberal" and "conservative" stances and preferences.

I agree...but I don't have to like it. I personally don't think idiots have a right to vote (not implying anyone here is...unless it applies to them.. ).

Would disbanding the standing land army be liberal or conservative?
Would adhering to the freedoms embodied in the constitution be liberal or conservative?
Would wanting an end to prison sentences for those who "commit" victimless crimes be conservative or liberal?
Would abolishing needless regulations and opressive laws be liberal or conservative?
Would holding governmental employees to the highest standards under our laws be liberal or conservative.
You're beginning to seem duckish here.

I seem "duckish" here concerning the circumstances you just brought up and I haven't yet had an opportunity to respond to?

Anyway, some complicted issues should be non-partisan and people should have leeway to decide what to do. You've mentioned several of them. Deciding whether or not to provide someone with civil rights, on the other hand, is a no-brainer. Evolution: no brainer...separation of church and state: no brainer (to the educated at least)...etc. etc...

It seems that politicians need and court the idiot vote.

Personally, I think every politician should work 10 years in the private sector before becoming a politician. They also shouldn't be able to serve on any regulatory board for an industry unless they worked at least 5 years in that field in the private sector. That way they would know how policies will effect the private sector.
Too many policies get made by people who know nothing about the area they are effecting except what their aids and "donators" (aka, special interest groups) tell them. This leads to pollicies that help some people at the expence of others.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Personally, I think every politician should work 10 years in the private sector before becoming a politician. They also shouldn't be able to serve on any regulatory board for an industry unless they worked at least 5 years in that field in the private sector. That way they would know how policies will effect the private sector.Too many policies get made by people who know nothing about the area they are effecting except what their aids and "donators" (aka, special interest groups) tell them. This leads to pollicies that help some people at the expence of others.

I fully understand the need for people to have better technical training and knowledge rather that just being sweet talkers, in many industrialized nations it would be inconceivable to have a politician say he doesnt beleive in evolution. And regardless, imo, politicians and the current electoral system is corrupt and outdated.

This said, The problem with Industry Insiders is the fox in the hen house syndrome, that are conflicts of interest between the industry and the public good and society.If crooked autodealers were in charge of regulating that industry because they know best, Tesla would be having an even harder time. Polluters would want to make pollution because they know best. The problem is not an industry's technical knowledge, its whether they are working for the public interest. Of course if the political system is instituted bribery, its somewhat moot, but thats another story. You need technical expertise but people that are not working for the industry, have interested in or bribe with a high paying baloney advisor job as a reward for screwing the public.
If cigarette companies and their cronies would have had their way we would still think that full flavoured Tar and Cyanid cigarettes are good for ya.

Conflict of interest is quite obvious in every one of those situations. Allowing them the regulate themselves, or areas they have financial interest in, is obvious institutionalized corruption.
I was assuming that they'd get out completely (at least in profit making ways) before regulating it.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Personally, I think every politician should work 10 years in the private sector before becoming a politician. They also shouldn't be able to serve on any regulatory board for an industry unless they worked at least 5 years in that field in the private sector. That way they would know how policies will effect the private sector.
Too many policies get made by people who know nothing about the area they are effecting except what their aids and "donators" (aka, special interest groups) tell them. This leads to pollicies that help some people at the expence of others.

And how does this ensure that such people won't favour that industry to the detriment of the public good or other industries or other policy objectives?

This approach would be a cast iron guarantee of "pollicies that help some people at the expence of others." in the view of many people who aren't insiders from that industry, I would have thought. How often do we hear complaints about hospitals being run by and for doctors, or mining/car/other industry being run by boards whose only interest is in their own shareholdings (because if you've reached any level of management authority in these industries, you will have shares in it)?

Democracy is not perfect. Supervisory or policy agencies are not perfect. But we have to make the best of what we've got. The most important thing is to have sensible methods of removing and replacing such bodies when they fail to maintain acceptable standards. That doesn't mean "Sack the lot of them!" every time they make a mistake or a mis-step. It does mean that after such incidents, they're on notice that they have to lift their game. Or someone will get sacked.

Frankly, I could run the government. I can balance a budget, make it stretch and cut the fat right off the top. I have ZERO faith in our governemtn and our future candidates. I haven't liked one for a long time. Last one that I actually voted for was Clinton second term. I have not voted for any candidate since.

Originally Posted by adelady

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Personally, I think every politician should work 10 years in the private sector before becoming a politician. They also shouldn't be able to serve on any regulatory board for an industry unless they worked at least 5 years in that field in the private sector. That way they would know how policies will effect the private sector.
Too many policies get made by people who know nothing about the area they are effecting except what their aids and "donators" (aka, special interest groups) tell them. This leads to pollicies that help some people at the expence of others.

And how does this ensure that such people won't favour that industry to the detriment of the public good or other industries or other policy objectives?

This approach would be a cast iron guarantee of "pollicies that help some people at the expence of others." in the view of many people who aren't insiders from that industry, I would have thought. How often do we hear complaints about hospitals being run by and for doctors, or mining/car/other industry being run by boards whose only interest is in their own shareholdings (because if you've reached any level of management authority in these industries, you will have shares in it)?

Democracy is not perfect. Supervisory or policy agencies are not perfect. But we have to make the best of what we've got. The most important thing is to have sensible methods of removing and replacing such bodies when they fail to maintain acceptable standards. That doesn't mean "Sack the lot of them!" every time they make a mistake or a mis-step. It does mean that after such incidents, they're on notice that they have to lift their game. Or someone will get sacked.

The regulatory boards don't have to be the last ones to decide. It can and should go to a general vote after that, at least for major issues. The point is to not have people who know nothing about the banking system creating regulations for banks, or people who know nothing about mining creating regulations for mining, or people who know nothing about energy production creating regulations for the energy industry. That is the easiest way to keep people with no knowledge of a field from ruining the field.

Or have people who know nothing about balancing a checkbook spending our tax dollars.

No one's mentioned Rupert Murdoch yet.

I'd like to apologise on behalf of my country for producing such a person.

Yup. There really are times when we should hang our heads and shuffle our feet and hope no-one recognises our accent.

(Being from Adelaide, I bear the added ignominy of being from the city that let him get going in the first place. Oh well.)

Originally Posted by adelady

Yup. There really are times when we should hang our heads and shuffle our feet and hope no-one recognises our accent.

(Being from Adelaide, I bear the added ignominy of being from the city that let him get going in the first place. Oh well.)

*S* you are forgiven!! One of my good friends lives there.....and we visited together in Sydney.

I've never met an Australian I didn't like.

Fortunately, I have yet to meet Murdoch.

Originally Posted by adelady

Yup. There really are times when we should hang our heads and shuffle our feet and hope no-one recognises our accent.

(Being from Adelaide, I bear the added ignominy of being from the city that let him get going in the first place. Oh well.)

So it's your fault!!! *glares*