Although my last thread got a surprising no hits, I'd still like to keep the same rules.  Respectable debate with a respect for logic.

Anyways, one of the main questions people always ask are about the people that are in power.  In most countries that are represented on this forum, the usual way of putting people into power is through elections.  However, even with the ability to elect our own leaders and representatives, you can't help but feel that there is still rampant amount of complaining about who gets the job.  Now give or take there are a fair amount of sore losers, but it's not always just the losers complaining.

Thus for this disucssion, maybe we can hit at the root of the issue.  For the first part of the question, do you think the right people in your city, state, country, province, etc. have the job.  And if so or if not so... why not?  Howeve,r I'd like to throw a twist in this.  We can argue whether the people are right all day long but maybe the problem persists deeper.  Are the right professions represented in our leaders.  Most leaders in America are either lawyers, businessment, social workers, or simply well endowed at birth.  Considering that politics is such an important role in the country, wouldn't you want political theorists, philosophers, etc. in power.  Plato would argue the best leader would be the philosopher king (although noted it was never going to happen for problems on both sides).  But isn't there some merit to this idea.  Even further on issues such as economics, environment, foreign policy, military strategy, is having advisors to the businessmen and lawyers good enough.  I think we are all tired of hearing politicians try to assert their authorities on such things as envirnoment and economics.

Point being is what does this mean for our current setup.  Are the right people elected to the job and this goes back on a standard of is the political profession to much about good speakers rather than capabilities.  Should the advisors be the representatives?  Do we elect people on their ability to be able to tackle many issues based on speech or do we elect people on knowledge of the actual subjects.  Question will then go back to is politics just a matter of deceiving the majority into thinking you know about the issues when in reality you are just a professional in rhetoric.

Discuss

Given this will probably be largely an American-politics thread, I'll throw in my two cents.

Bush was a man who did what he said but what he said was normally no good.

Obama is a man who has some decent ideas but is incapable/lies/is ignorant of his ability to implement them, and so nothing gets done.

All in all the answer is no, America does not have the right people in power. It should have been Gore, and then McCain. Easy for me to say with hindsight of course, but it's the way I felt at each election, and an opinion I feel very vindicated in having now.

Well I think most people can come up with instances in where they disagree with the outcome of an election.  Hell I was hoping Ron Paul would win the Republican nomination and then dominate but that was never going to happen haha.

But this is trying to be a deeper question than that.  Part 1 of the question is to simply gain common ground with everyone in the thread because I know everyone is going to be able to think of someone who shouldn't be in power.  Then I propose an argument that possible could be the root of the problem... maybe we are thinking about who a politician is wrong.  Which is why I proposed maybe politicians should be the well-educated in areas such as well politica science, philosophy, economics, science, etc. rather than business, law (although still needed of course haha), and religion.  I even go as far to state that possibly we are deceived into thinking they are best for the job becuase they are good with rhetoric... something that Socrates would argue as well. 

I would even propose another argument... maybe it's not possible for the "right" people to get the job because of the expense to run a campaign like it is here in America.  Point is we all can have a subjective thought that the right people are not in power... but maybe we shouldn't just lay down and take it.  Instead of accepting it, let's figure out the root of the problem. 

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.