Defending Elitism

ok, i’m going to take a stab at this.

I am for elitism? Lemme see, I rank in the top 1% of the general population in several areas (IQ, fitness, etc.). By most reckoning if there were to be rule by an elite, I’d be in it.

In a perfect world (Plato) sure, having people run everything would be great. We get experts to do our brain surgery for us, why not extend that to every part of life? As I say, I’d come out ahead so I should support this. Right? Um, no…

Well, for one thing, elite would have to be very narrowly defined. I’m good at big & theoretically elegant scientific systems. Fuck if I know how to fix my car. You don’t want me setting culinary guidelines for anyone while we’re at it, although it would certainly solve the national obesity problem. Human nature will assume that if you’re good at one thing you’re just “better” and it goes downhill from there.

Look at those 9-11 nuts cases. An awful lot of them are experts in some other field (like the Dr. of Theology who has no business making pronouncements on Physics). Problem is that elites are still human, with all the foibles and leaving them with no oversight will cause a great deal of mischief. Anyone remember Lysenko?

Could we get around this? Maybe. Look at the AMA. If you had some licensing system like that followed by draconian policing of the elites it might be workable. Doctors though are hardly free. They get paid a lot (and we get to resent them for that, plus the fact we only get to contradict them at our own peril) but they really aren’t in control of their own lives. Most doctors do it not because of the money but because they feel like they make a difference. In other words, it is a calling, not a job or even a career. Again, this might just be my buddies, but who would want to become an “elite accountant” if they had to endure some system like that?

And maybe I’m just full of shit**…

– jj

** I keep writing that at the end of my posts, BTW, because I am painfully aware of how fallible I am as a human and seek to rein in my own baroque tendencies.

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
ok, i’m going to take a stab at this.

I am for elitism? Lemme see, I rank in the top 1% of the general population in several areas (IQ, fitness, etc.). By most reckoning if there were to be rule by an elite, I’d be in it.

In a perfect world (Plato) sure, having people run everything would be great. We get experts to do our brain surgery for us, why not extend that to every part of life? As I say, I’d come out ahead so I should support this. Right? Um, no…

Well, for one thing, elite would have to be very narrowly defined. I’m good at big & theoretically elegant scientific systems. Fuck if I know how to fix my car. You don’t want me setting culinary guidelines for anyone while we’re at it, although it would certainly solve the national obesity problem. Human nature will assume that if you’re good at one thing you’re just “better” and it goes downhill from there.

Look at those 9-11 nuts cases. An awful lot of them are experts in some other field (like the Dr. of Theology who has no business making pronouncements on Physics). Problem is that elites are still human, with all the foibles and leaving them with no oversight will cause a great deal of mischief. Anyone remember Lysenko?

Could we get around this? Maybe. Look at the AMA. If you had some licensing system like that followed by draconian policing of the elites it might be workable. Doctors though are hardly free. They get paid a lot (and we get to resent them for that, plus the fact we only get to contradict them at our own peril) but they really aren’t in control of their own lives. Most doctors do it not because of the money but because they feel like they make a difference. In other words, it is a calling, not a job or even a career. Again, this might just be my buddies, but who would want to become an “elite accountant” if they had to endure some system like that?

And maybe I’m just full of shit**…

– jj

** I keep writing that at the end of my posts, BTW, because I am painfully aware of how fallible I am as a human and seek to rein in my own baroque tendencies. [/quote]

you claim to be in the top 1% of intelligent people in the world and “good at big & theoretically elegant scientific systems” but yet miss the distinction in the discussion above between having above average abilities in some general field and having above average abilities in the specific fields of justice, economics, and politics (what perhaps could be summarized as above average abilities in “ruling”)?

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
you claim to be in the top 1% of intelligent people in the world and “good at big & theoretically elegant scientific systems” but yet miss the distinction in the discussion above between having above average abilities in some general field and having above average abilities in the specific fields of justice, economics, and politics (what perhaps could be summarized as above average abilities in “ruling”)?
[/quote]

Do you believe that one can have political knowledge without also having natural science?

If there is theoretical and practical wisdom, don’t we need both to rule? At least, in Plato’s view.

This whole argument rests on the premise that one believe that “some people do not know what is best for them”. Even if this were true does it imply that the elite would know what is best for them?

There have already been examples made: I go to a plumber to fix my pipes and a doctor when I am sick. There are inherent qualities in us all that make us suited to specific tasks whether that task is merely a broom-pusher or as complicated as a computer programmer. We all rely on the division of labor because which has proven the most efficient means of production.

I think governing, by definition, cannot have done by some superlative class because it must imply that there is a best method and outcome. I liken it to investment but with one noted and all important missing detail – profit.

Because entrepreneurs are always seeking to maximize profits they can direct resources where they think there will be a profit – if it succeeds there is a profit motive to continue. This is not the case in governing. There is no feedback mechanism to even measure any results.

Government also implies one monolithic solution to any problem. The market offers many solutions. What happens in each example, if the decisions made aren’t elite enough?

[quote]nephorm wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
you claim to be in the top 1% of intelligent people in the world and “good at big & theoretically elegant scientific systems” but yet miss the distinction in the discussion above between having above average abilities in some general field and having above average abilities in the specific fields of justice, economics, and politics (what perhaps could be summarized as above average abilities in “ruling”)?

Do you believe that one can have political knowledge without also having natural science?

If there is theoretical and practical wisdom, don’t we need both to rule? At least, in Plato’s view.[/quote]

one could argue that Plato’s view (at least the Plato of the republic) was that while yes, we need both theoretical and practical wisdom, that the “highest” sort of knowledge needed was knowledge of the “good”, of course.

most likely, it seems that in today’s day and age, to rule well one needs both theoretical and practical knowledge (experience) about morality (construed in a broad sense, as a formal science), economics, and what the ancient would have called rhetoric (what today we might call politics). Perhaps military skill also, depending on how one divides up civic responsibility.

natural science? in some areas. probably what would be best would be a general background in the basics of modern science, so that the rulers are at least familiar with political issues involving science (say like the ethics of cloning, or evolution, etc…). But the rulers can’t do everything, the aforementioned subjects are perhaps best. Besides, there would clearly be a need for aids and advisers anyway.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This whole argument rests on the premise that one believe that “some people do not know what is best for them”. Even if this were true does it imply that the elite would know what is best for them?

There have already been examples made: I go to a plumber to fix my pipes and a doctor when I am sick. There are inherent qualities in us all that make us suited to specific tasks whether that task is merely a broom-pusher or as complicated as a computer programmer. We all rely on the division of labor because which has proven the most efficient means of production.

I think governing, by definition, cannot have done by some superlative class because it must imply that there is a best method and outcome. I liken it to investment but with one noted and all important missing detail – profit.

Because entrepreneurs are always seeking to maximize profits they can direct resources where they think there will be a profit – if it succeeds there is a profit motive to continue. This is not the case in governing. There is no feedback mechanism to even measure any results.

Government also implies one monolithic solution to any problem. The market offers many solutions. What happens in each example, if the decisions made aren’t elite enough?[/quote]

well, the premise seems reasonable. i can think of many counterexamples. for instance, do children know what is best for them? do the mentally ill? how about criminals? do they know what is best for them? how about emotionally distraught victims? do they always know whats best for them?

these are clear cut cases where clearly the person does not always know whats best for them. so, the premise is sound. the question then becomes are mentally competent and emotional well people always the best judge of what is best for them? clearly, no one believes this either. i’ll give you an example. in this country we have democrats and republicans. currently the democrats are rallying around a cry for universal health care, because they KNOW that this will be best for everyone. The republicans on the other hand are rallying against universal health care, because they KNOW that this will be best for everyone. Clearly, one or both sides are wrong. in either case, there are many people who think they know whats best for them, but don’t.

so, i don’t see how anyone could argue with the premise.

Your next claim is that the job of ruling is different from that of other professions. Your premise seems to be that there need not be one best method to governing, nor even one ideal outcome.

i agree whole hardily, and in fact i think this is much of what is wrong with current politics and economics. people seem to have this idea that there is some IDEAL governmental structure and state and economy, and that if only we could get there, things would be perfect and we would never have to worry again (in some ways, this was the goal of the founding fathers). Given our limited knowledge as humans, and our limited and disastrous experience with government (we’ve only been doing this a few thousand years, which isn’t that long in the grand scheme of things), this idea seems silly. Also, what is “best” for one person is not “best” for everyone else. Thus, it seems even in principle that what is best for everyone isn’t one thing.

BUT… even though i grant this premise, i do not believe that it follows that “elitism”, as described here, must fail. After all, despite the fact that there is no one best method, or one ideal outcome, are there not some methods which work better then others? are their not some outcomes are better? For example, clearly the methods employed by the US government over the last 100 years have been better then those employed by stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China. Further, does it not also seem to follow that given the complexity involved in governing, and given the need for understanding and diversity found in the premise, is this not all the more reason for wanting the best qualified to rule?

surely we do not want to leave such a difficult and important job to just anyone who can sway the masses by telling them they’ll give them more candy (which is what recent elections in the USA seem like).

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This whole argument rests on the premise that one believe that “some people do not know what is best for them”. Even if this were true does it imply that the elite would know what is best for them?
?[/quote]

I agree with the above, although I take difference with the whole “let the market decide everything” position.

Look, the problem with elitism is that there is only a very slim area over which any smart person, no matter how smart they are, can have mastery. Carpenters know more about carpentry than brain surgeons do and the dentist knows how to fix your teeth better than the sofware engineer. The total intellectual capial is spread out over a wide network. If you beckon the great geniuses of history like Einstein or Leonardo (da Vinci) or [name your most esteemed genius here, you will find that they are absolute ignoramuses when it comes to most subjects. That’s true of everyone.

The fallacy of thinking that intellectual capital could be concentrated in one person, or one small group of people is what is wrong with elitism per se.

And, btw, I don’t see anything elitist in Obama’s comments.

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:

surely we do not want to leave such a difficult and important job to just anyone who can sway the masses by telling them they’ll give them more candy (which is what recent elections in the USA seem like). [/quote]

There are ways this could be diminished. Curbing the financial contributions to politicians would be one. The media could help by revolting against sound-byte politics and not engaging in stupid spectacles like last week’s Democratic debate.

Obviously the problem is an old one. People have preferred “bread and circuses” over deliberating intelligently over matters for a long time. Of course, the electronic media has, in many instances, caused further deterioration.

Stoked, you have obviously been smitten by the socratic method, because your language sounds a bit like its been plucked from “The Republic”. You might do well to read Popper’s rebuttal of the whole platonist project in, “The Open Society and Its Enemies (Volume 1)”

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think the problems with elitism are 1) that it’s almost always paired with condescension and 2) it’s almost always paired with nanny-state policies justified with “you don’t know what’s for your own good.”[/quote]

That is so true and it is a joke that this accusation is coming from Hillary. If anyone is paying attention, Hillary is proposing a healthcare plan that forces everyone to belong to it even if they don’t want to. Yet, Obama states that they have the option, but are not forced.

When you want to force someone to do something against their will it is generally because you think you know better than they. So Hillary calling Obama an elitist is like Bill calling someone else a horn-dog! She is the worst offender.

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
one could argue that Plato’s view (at least the Plato of the republic) was that while yes, we need both theoretical and practical wisdom, that the “highest” sort of knowledge needed was knowledge of the “good”, of course.
[/quote]

But the Good is an equivocal term, because the Good is also Being. And it is impossible to know Being without knowing the whole, which presupposes natural science.

I will try to come back to this thread later and flesh out some of my thoughts.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
one could argue that Plato’s view (at least the Plato of the republic) was that while yes, we need both theoretical and practical wisdom, that the “highest” sort of knowledge needed was knowledge of the “good”, of course.

But the Good is an equivocal term, because the Good is also Being. And it is impossible to know Being without knowing the whole, which presupposes natural science.

I will try to come back to this thread later and flesh out some of my thoughts.[/quote]

yeah, thats what i was trying to get at. kinda trying to answer the Plato stuff without getting into details, since the details of Plato’s ontology and epistemology are not so applicable to the discussion (i think you can take many of Plato’s arguments in the republic without also taking his ontology, even though many of his arguments are based on the ontology).

anyway, the plato is stuff is hard, especially since its not clear whether plato changes his mind after parmenides. figuring out just what Plato had in mind when he talked about the form of the good is difficult. for instance, the form of the good surely isn’t equivocal to the whole of everything, for Plato in parmendies has a young socrates reject the idea of their being a form of shit. if anything, the form of the good is only equivocal to all the other forms, but there of course are not forms for everything, and no forms for the things of the natural sciences (see below).

also, plato didn’t like natural science. those who looked to much at those rocks and animals and stuff were still stuck back in the cave. Plato got his jollies off on math and pythagoreanism. One could only have real knowledge of the forms.

also, Plato no where endorses forms of what we would consider topics of natural science. Socrates again hesitates to even accept that there might be a form of man. Plato does give forms for some odd objects, like beds, but these are artifacts, not things to study in the natural sciences. in the republic most of the guardians training revolves around either purely theoretical things like math, or purely practical things like the art of being a statesman or physical training.

this is just a general overview, off the top of my head (sorry for the lack of references). i really would hesitate though before saying that Plato would say that good rulers should know the natural sciences. Plato just wasn’t interested in them.

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
also, plato didn’t like natural science. those who looked to much at those rocks and animals and stuff were still stuck back in the cave. Plato got his jollies off on math and pythagoreanism. One could only have real knowledge of the forms.
[/quote]

The problem with natural science the way it was understood before Aristotle is that it focused on particulars and not on species and genera. Mathematics and the forms are a way into natural science that is rational and general. Alfarabi gives an account of Plato beginning with the human things, ascending through dialectic to as far as dialectic could carry him, and then beginning again with the natural. Aristotle begins with the natural and moves to the human things.

Again, mathematics was embryonic. You have to ask yourself why math was so supreme that he who had no math could not enter the Academy. It is still the problem of what it means to be; and mathematics represent the unchanging aspects of being.

It is hard to know what of natural science students might even study prior to Aristotle. But again, I believe that Plato intended to put mathematics to the same use that Aristotle put natural science.

[quote]
this is just a general overview, off the top of my head (sorry for the lack of references). i really would hesitate though before saying that Plato would say that good rulers should know the natural sciences. Plato just wasn’t interested in them. [/quote]

I don’t generally use references over the internet, and I don’t expect anyone else to, either. Not for this kind of discussion in this particular stage.

Perhaps it is an anachronism to say “natural sciences.” But keep in mind that when Socrates was first studying nature, it was pure speculation. Plato and Aristotle sought a rational basis for exploring the world. To that end, Plato attempted to employ mathematical reasoning.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
also, plato didn’t like natural science. those who looked to much at those rocks and animals and stuff were still stuck back in the cave. Plato got his jollies off on math and pythagoreanism. One could only have real knowledge of the forms.

The problem with natural science the way it was understood before Aristotle is that it focused on particulars and not on species and genera. Mathematics and the forms are a way into natural science that is rational and general. Alfarabi gives an account of Plato beginning with the human things, ascending through dialectic to as far as dialectic could carry him, and then beginning again with the natural. Aristotle begins with the natural and moves to the human things.

also, Plato no where endorses forms of what we would consider topics of natural science. Socrates again hesitates to even accept that there might be a form of man. Plato does give forms for some odd objects, like beds, but these are artifacts, not things to study in the natural sciences. in the republic most of the guardians training revolves around either purely theoretical things like math, or purely practical things like the art of being a statesman or physical training.

Again, mathematics was embryonic. You have to ask yourself why math was so supreme that he who had no math could not enter the Academy. It is still the problem of what it means to be; and mathematics represent the unchanging aspects of being.

It is hard to know what of natural science students might even study prior to Aristotle. But again, I believe that Plato intended to put mathematics to the same use that Aristotle put natural science.

this is just a general overview, off the top of my head (sorry for the lack of references). i really would hesitate though before saying that Plato would say that good rulers should know the natural sciences. Plato just wasn’t interested in them.

I don’t generally use references over the internet, and I don’t expect anyone else to, either. Not for this kind of discussion in this particular stage.

Perhaps it is an anachronism to say “natural sciences.” But keep in mind that when Socrates was first studying nature, it was pure speculation. Plato and Aristotle sought a rational basis for exploring the world. To that end, Plato attempted to employ mathematical reasoning. [/quote]

i think in your response your reading alittle to much into Plato. it sounds as if your suggesting that had plato only seen where his view might go, he would abandon his current view and pick up a more Aristotelian system. (if this is not what your suggesting, sorry). Plato though was alive and well as Aristotle began to develop his system, and their’s strong evidence Aristotle’s objections to Plato’s system influenced Plato (hence why there’s debate about what Plato’s final views really were). On every creditable account i’ve seen of Plato’s late ontology (and i research it), it seems that if anything at all, Plato becomes even more Pythagorean, not Aristotelian.

there are fundimental differences between Plato’s ontology and Aristotle’s. Aristotle’s table of categories directly controdicts Plato’s divided line (to put it simply). it is the individual particulars that are most real for aristotle (and any modern scientist), and the abstract universals that are most real for Plato.

Though of course Plato had a different conceptual scheme then we do today, it is still comparable. it sounds to me like you are confusing modern science’s use of generalizations in theory formation with Plato’s ontological posit that the most fundamental constitutes of reality are those very universals. The modern scientific view is very Aristotelian–while it uses universals to quantify theory, the fundamental constitutes of reality are still the individual particulars (ie, scientists say the physical objects in front of them are real, and only that the abstract theories provide better descriptions).

Plato’s view is not only that the forms can help explain the particulars, but that there is nothing to explain in the particulars at all. they are not real. only forms.

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
i think in your response your reading alittle to much into Plato. it sounds as if your suggesting that had plato only seen where his view might go, he would abandon his current view and pick up a more Aristotelian system. (if this is not what your suggesting, sorry). Plato though was alive and well as Aristotle began to develop his system, and their’s strong evidence Aristotle’s objections to Plato’s system influenced Plato (hence why there’s debate about what Plato’s final views really were). On every creditable account i’ve seen of Plato’s late ontology (and i research it), it seems that if anything at all, Plato becomes even more Pythagorean, not Aristotelian.
[/quote]

I don’t want to suggest that Plato becomes Aristotelian. Nor do I want to suggest that if only Plato had known what we know now - or what Aristotle knew then. Rather, my point is that Aristotle and Plato aimed at a single goal, to which they applied differing methods. When Plato talks about mathematics, he is talking about science. That is, true knowledge. Not only is he talking about true knowledge, he is talking about nature itself. Natural science. Not biology, not physics, not chemistry; but true knowledge about nature. Not even physical science, but knowledge of being.

[/quote]
there are fundimental differences between Plato’s ontology and Aristotle’s. Aristotle’s table of categories directly controdicts Plato’s divided line (to put it simply). it is the individual particulars that are most real for aristotle (and any modern scientist), and the abstract universals that are most real for Plato.
[/quote]

[quote]
Plato’s view is not only that the forms can help explain the particulars, but that there is nothing to explain in the particulars at all. they are not real. only forms. [/quote]

I think this is an overstatement of the Platonic case.

At any rate, my intent was not to get into a debate wherein I attempt to harmonize the views of the Divine Plato and Aristotle. They have serious differences, and they are not a single Philosopher.

But we can eschew this debate and simply use terms more to your liking: how can one be a Philosopher King without a perfected mathematics? This doesn’t seem to bother you, so I’ll just let it be. I have had far too little sleep lately to argue the same points.

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
i don’t see how anyone could argue with the premise.
[/quote]
Just because a child or a mentally handicapped person may not know what is best for them does not imply that the care taker does. Also, I wouldn’t put the role of a care taker into an elite category no matter how good that person may be.

I guess my problem wasn’t with your premise but rather the soundness of the argument.

Premise: the populous sometimes doesn’t know what’s best for their own good – this is a true claim

Conclusion: there exists an elitist class of rulers that knows what is best – this is not true, nor does it follow that the trueness of the premise should lead to the trueness of the conclusion.

My philosophical leanings make it hard for me to accept that there could be a perfect method for governing. I do not think it takes an elite individual to live by the principle of “live and let live”. This principle flies in the face of the elitist class.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Just because a child or a mentally handicapped person may not know what is best for them does not imply that the care taker does. Also, I wouldn’t put the role of a care taker into an elite category no matter how good that person may be.
[/quote]

I read through this whole thing just waiting for somebody to make this point.

In theory, I think society would have much more potential to be great if we employed a sort of political system where eliticists did make most if not all decisions, as opposed to our current ever-more populist society, which will ultimately be the downfall of our democracy. This is not to say there would be one group making all decisions, but multiple groups over-seeing their respective fields of expertise.

The practical problem of the whole thing is deciding who the eliticists are.

[quote]tedro wrote:
The practical problem of the whole thing is deciding who the eliticists are.[/quote]

i don’t have much time, i’ll try to write more later, but… is this really that hard to do?

I’ll give you an example. who are the best basketball players? what about the most elite runners? how about the best military generals?

all of these people are easy found by comparing abilities. The best basketball players are found by comparing them to all the other basketball players, the most elite runners by winning races, etc…

of course, many of you will want to claim that again, since in a particular area like ethics the “ends” are not as clear as basketball, that you cannot find the best by looking for who does the best actions, as this merely begs the question.

those who would make this claim go to far though. obviously in some ways you are correct, using the same method to find the best ethicists as one uses to find the best basketball players or runners will leave many cases undecidable. But… that is not to say the method is useless. though there are many “gray areas”, we can easily pick out the extremes. but is this not the same in basketball? arn’t there many undecidable cases where we can’t figure out just which 5 players are THE best?

my point is, you don’t need to have complete moral agreement in order to roughly figure out which people are better then others, or which, in general, are more elite then others.

for instance, given a potato farmer who’s only functionally literate and a Phd economist who’s worked at the WMF for 20 years, who is more “elite” in economic matters? Given a politician who has spent his life lying and manipulating, and a person who has spent their life working as a social worker, who knows more about ethics? these are of course extreme examples, but, we can almost just as easily decide not so extreme ones also.

is the method perfect? no, but neither is how we pick out the best basketball players, and people still think that is possible.

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
is the method perfect? no, but neither is how we pick out the best basketball players, and people still think that is possible. [/quote]

Finding the best requires a quantitative measurement of one or more particular qualities. The first problem arises when we try to decide which qualities to measure. The next problem happens when we decide how to measure that quality.

Even in basketball, which has many easy measurable qualities, it is not an easy task to decide which qualities makes someone the best. Do we just go by most points scored in ones career? Who is the best basketball player?

Extrapolating this analogy to a non-sporting event we can start to see where difficulties might happen. What are the elite qualities in leaders and how do we measure them? I know of no measurement that could not be disputed. Even IQ would not be a sufficient quality. Psychologists and educators have been arguing for decades the validity of this standard.

This just illustrates a whole other host of problems that arises with measurement. Who will measure and what standards will be used? Surely we could just use a standard agreed upon by a convention of an elite group of experts…? This becomes a viscous cycle.

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
tedro wrote:
The practical problem of the whole thing is deciding who the eliticists are.

i don’t have much time, i’ll try to write more later, but… is this really that hard to do?

I’ll give you an example. who are the best basketball players? what about the most elite runners? how about the best military generals?

all of these people are easy found by comparing abilities. The best basketball players are found by comparing them to all the other basketball players, the most elite runners by winning races, etc…

of course, many of you will want to claim that again, since in a particular area like ethics the “ends” are not as clear as basketball, that you cannot find the best by looking for who does the best actions, as this merely begs the question.

those who would make this claim go to far though. obviously in some ways you are correct, using the same method to find the best ethicists as one uses to find the best basketball players or runners will leave many cases undecidable. But… that is not to say the method is useless. though there are many “gray areas”, we can easily pick out the extremes. but is this not the same in basketball? arn’t there many undecidable cases where we can’t figure out just which 5 players are THE best?

my point is, you don’t need to have complete moral agreement in order to roughly figure out which people are better then others, or which, in general, are more elite then others.

for instance, given a potato farmer who’s only functionally literate and a Phd economist who’s worked at the WMF for 20 years, who is more “elite” in economic matters? Given a politician who has spent his life lying and manipulating, and a person who has spent their life working as a social worker, who knows more about ethics? these are of course extreme examples, but, we can almost just as easily decide not so extreme ones also.

is the method perfect? no, but neither is how we pick out the best basketball players, and people still think that is possible. [/quote]

Moral issues are the biggest problem. Many would say that Obama is a moral person, I beg to differ. The problem is that there are too many issues with a large group of supporters that take opposite stances. Abortion? Gun Control? Social Security? Who decides on these? How do we measure who is the most qualified? I can think of many ways, but I know many people would disagree with me, and ultimately lead a populist movement against me. It doesn’t take a genius to determine that social security is bad for the nation, but can you imagine the revolt if it is taken completely away?

As lifty said, there needs to be a quantitative way to measure these things. We could make a test, but who writes it?

A little off-topic, but I really would like to see politicians take mandatory IQ tests. The results are somewhat debatable, but it is generally a good test of intelligence. Other tests could also be given. History, economics, etc. I think this could be the best solution. Our leaders are still elected, but at least the public has something quantitative to use to compare them. For instance, I don’t doubt that Hillary and Obama are very knowledgable, but I would not expect either to perform exceptionally well on an IQ test.