Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This about sums up my feelings about American cultural bias on the political system.

I don't think that has anything to do with a 'meritocracy'. More like Palin, while high-profile may not be qualified to be a head of state.

mer·i·toc·ra·cy /ˌmɛrɪˈtɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mer-i-tok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies.
1. an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth.
2. a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced: The dean believes the educational system should be a meritocracy.
3. leadership by able and talented persons.
[Origin: 1955–60; merit + -o- + -cracy]

my bad. I always associated the term with #1 and #2.

From this side of the pond it looks disturbingly likely that McCain/Palin could be elected.
If that happens, I am totally going to *facepalm*

Just seems like a sad state where people are more concerned about who's making it on American Idol than who's making it into political positions that might actually affect them.

You know, it would be a fine thing if the American government really *were* a Meritocracy...

I agree with the argument, but have to note that the author never really went about making his case. He simply cited a long list of dodgy Bush appointees, and while the list is damning, it’s cronyism, not a love of mediocrity that inspired Bush’ appointments. Palin looks like she’d likely have same tendencies, but the American system has always tended towards political appointments compared to other countries, so it’s hard to know exactly where typical practice becomes unacceptable. Bush’ appointments were obviously were unacceptable, but both McCain and Obama have old friends and colleagues in their staff who could likely expect appointments, and neither of them have been accused of cronyism to the best of my knowledge.

But that’s a different issue to the idea of politicians appealing to the lowest common denominator. I’m not sure the tendency of people to demand their politicians be as ignorant as they are is as strong as people like to make out. I think the problem is more to do with generally ignorant people failing to recognise how complicated foreign policy, the economy and other elements of the presidency really are. As a result they tend to fall for someone who explains things simply and with conviction, even if what they just said was complete drek. It isn’t that people demand stupid answers, it’s just that smart answers take a lot longer and don’t fit on a bumper sticker.

It’s also worth noting that the US, like every other representative democracy, isn’t a meritocracy and isn’t supposed to be one. In a meritocracy people would gain promotion by showing talent and performing well, while any system based around voting is determined by, well, getting people to vote for you. While it’d be nice to think that some perfect system could determine who would be most skilled leader and just give him the job, this opens up a whole range of hellish possibilities, most of which you’ll find in any penny dreadful dystopic sci-fi novel from the 70s.

Hell, I'd settle for the Civil Service to be Meritocratic.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Hell, I'd settle for the Civil Service to be Meritocratic.

I’d like every system everywhere to be a meritocracy. Many systems are indeed meant to be meritocracies, but unfortunately they fall short. Sometimes they fall short by a little, sometimes a lot. By and large government appears to me to be no different to any large company in it’s ability to recognise and promote talent.

Although I concede this might be different in the US, as over there top level government positions are overtly political positions, because they’re directly elected (DAs and the like) or because in the US its more culturally acceptable for nominations for the Attorney General and similar positions to be political appointments.

Hell, I work with people who have no business doing the job that they're in.

I just smile and nod, smug in my knowledge that I'm making more than they are.

(That's right, I'm a huge jerk. In my defense, I'm also arrogant.)

Nice.