| starcraft said: Well using one of your examples (Economics) let's look at why Obama is in the wrong. Whilst advocating a (albeit less extreme) form of neo-liberalist economics similar to that of the Republican party, he is in fact largely practicing a blend of Keynesian and Socialist economics. Whilst I don't personally have much of a problem with the Keynesian part (the socialist parts are a problem), what is horrifying is that from all he has said it is quite possible Obama simply hasn't realised this, or at the very least has no desire to be open about it with the American public. Then you have Iran, and a clear example of why on a global scale, Obama's knowledge of Political Science is limited, and his honesty questionable. A vast array of completely meaningless "achievements" supposed to represent progress in eliminating Iran's drive towards nuclear weapons are being trumpeted as major steps when Obama must know full well they are irrelevant (so he is either lying or stupid). They have only just, JUST begun to learn their lesson with the latest round of Iranian talks. Don't even get me started on Bush. |
So obviously you seem to agree with the argument I first proposed. A reason why you don't like Obama, and potentially Bush, is because they aren't able to run the government as a whole due to their lack of knowledge in certain areas. Whether it be economics or foreign policy. Then of course we need to ask who is better for such a job and if so why the hell are they not the ones in the running.
I'd argue that buisnessmen, rhetoricians, lawyers, and men of religion get to where they are not because of their expertise on the issuese but because of their ability to speak and manipulate (let's not take the word negatively by the way). While they may have good intentions (as I'd argue both Obama and Bush do) they simply are able to get there not based on their qualifications for the job. One of the main arguments against Obama and eventually Sarah Palin was their qualifications for the job. However, did any of the candidates have the qualifications. None of them could tell me a damn thing about political theory, economics, philosophy, international politics, or environmental science let alone political science. Yet all of them talk as if they do know about it.
As a people we all listen to these people use good speech and we buy into it. Obama is definitely a great rhetorician but that doesn't mean he will be able to actually have the knowledge he proposes to have. Once again i can't stress enough the intentions are probably good but that doesn't mean there is a qualification for the job. Instead of a people we need to stop electing the "politicians' and start electing actual politicans. I'd want the smartest people in all fields being the ones making decisions... not the ones who have the most money, best use of rhetoric, or just their own interests at heart.
Which is why I then questioned is it practical to have those who are "best" qualified or even possible for those like that to get elected noting that money is definitely an issue in the current elections.
