Should public office be limited to business executives?

[godisgood77]

Woodrow Wilson, Blessed Pope Paul VI, Winston Churchill, Mother Theresa, John Paul II to name only a few UN supports… there are hundreds more with top character.

Why do you ask?

 

[PetraG]

My brother in law and I were having a nice dinner and he proposed that the only people who should run for office are those who have operated some sort of business at the decision-making level.

What is “non-executive” private enterprise? How would you legally define having operated a business at the “decision-making level”? You surely don’t mean someone has to have reached some level in a publicly-traded company in order to be eligible, right? If this is a “balanced budget” thing, are you going to exclude people who have run businesses that had to declare bankruptcy? I think politically-ambitious executives would simply be sure to jump ship before their organization formally went into the ditch.

Practically speaking, I think you’d just have the politically ambitious getting themselves appointed to some nominal leadership role in a business and jumping out as soon as the business looked as if it might mess up their resume. Joe Kennedy, for instance, could certainly have gotten his sons placed in whatever position they needed in order to be politically eligible. They could be business “decision-makers” simultaneously with holding whatever office the law left open for those without the qualifications to hold the highest offices. The difference would be that canidates would be beholden to the business sector that got them qualified for office.

I think it is just as bad as deciding someone has to have experience in public service in order to run for office.

Women were allowed to run for office before they had the vote.

The people actually proposing and directly voting on the laws are taxpayers. Taxpayers do vote to raise taxes. They did it back when only male landowners could vote, so there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t do it when only taxpayers could vote.

 

[PetraG]

Trump will be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents ever. That is unless the political elite get him removed. Why is it so many are against the man? Could it be that he will get done all the promises they have been making for the past 4 decades?

When he comes up with health insurance that covers everyone “beautifully” and no one is worse off financially, which is what HE promised, we’ll talk about how great he is.

So far, he has been busy un-doing things. That isn’t the hard part of statecraft.

I cannot think of better evidence of being an utterly out-of-touch President than suggesting that teachers ought to have guns. Teachers wish they could have lots of expensive things in their classrooms that they cannot have for budgetary reasons. Loaded weapons are not among them. I do not know a single teacher who personally wishes he or she had a loaded weapon on his or her person at all times while at school. (If not on the persons of the teachers, where does the President want those loaded weapons to be stored?)

If you want police that patrol schools specifically, then you could be talking. People do not go into teaching so they can learn to be on the front line to confront armed intruders at their schools. They want to work in schools where there aren’t armed intruders, so they can teach in safety.

 

[PetraG]

Public office requires people who listen, who can find a way to help parties in conflict come to a consensus they can live with, who understand the law well enough to appreciate the actual results likely to come from specific public policy proposals and who have the ability to earn the respect required to lead free people and represent them to other nations.

There isn’t just one single background or experience that provides that. I wouldn’t bar anyone based on the experiences they’ve had, then. Let the voters do that. They’re the ones who have to feel they’re being listened to, they’re the ones who have to cooperate with government to make any law work, and they’re the ones who have to accept the leadership of those they elect to represent and lead them.

You might require that voters be given certain information about candidates deemed necessary to make an informed choice. Except for that and perhaps an age requirement for the highest offices, let them choose.

 

[philipl]

I have four family members who are teaches or were teachers and they all say they should be allowed to carry guns.

 

[Theo520]

Public office requires people who listen, who can find a way to help parties in conflict come to a consensus they can live with, who understand the law well enough to appreciate the actual results likely to come from specific public policy proposals and who have the ability to earn the respect required to lead free people and represent them to other nations.

There isn’t just one single background or experience that provides that. I wouldn’t bar anyone based on the experiences they’ve had, then. Let the voters do that. They’re the ones who have to feel they’re being listened to, they’re the ones who have to cooperate with government to make any law work, and they’re the ones who have to accept the leadership of those they elect to represent and lead them.

You might require that voters be given certain information about candidates deemed necessary to make an informed choice. Except for that and perhaps an age requirement for the highest offices, let them choose.

It really depends what public office you are talking about, since the many different roles require different skills. You can’t meld them all together.

For the people we are putting in charge at the top, people making decisions, obviously some prior decision making experience would be good training.

 

[PetraG]

I have four family members who are teaches or were teachers and they all say they should be allowed to carry guns.

Allowing teachers to carry guns is different from “arming teachers.” You know four teachers, all from one family, who want to be allowed to carry guns. Have you asked how they feel about every one of their colleagues having a loaded weapon? How about how much money said non-gun-owning teachers have to spend on personal firearms to carry at work? How about whether they’d like the school district to spend money on weapons training for teachers instead of some other classroom need? How about the chance that it will be a student winding up wielding a teacher’s weapon because the teacher had the weapon on his or her person and the student got it? Correctional officers do not carry loaded weapons when they are in with the inmates. There is a reason for that.

I know a lot of teachers who are fine with having a school safety officer who is armed, because the officer doesn’t have to have close contact with students. He can pay attention to security and he can keep tabs on his weapon. He can concentrate on the kind of training necessary to handle a situation where there is a shooter in the schoool. That is not something a teacher wants to add to the to do list, instead of training all their attention on students and none on the moment-to-moment security of the loaded weapon they are carrrying.

Let’s not even get started on how students, most of whom come from homes with no guns, would feel about seeing their teacher has a loaded gun strapped to his or her hip.

 

[PetraG]

It really depends what public office you are talking about, since the many different roles require different skills. You can’t meld them all together.

For the people we are putting in charge at the top, people making decisions, obviously some prior decision making experience would be good training.

Which elected office does not require listening to the public, an ability to find solutions that reconcile conflict, or an ability to differentiate between the intent of a proposed policy and the actual results it is likely to produce? Which one does not need to earn respect in order to lead effectively?

There are not many occupations that voters would consider a positive on a candidate’s resume that did not involve decision-making. One could argue, however, that a person accustomed to making decisions without having to care about what anyone else thought about their decision might have to seriously switch their noodle when they get into public office. We elect people to represent us; they don’t get to operate as if they were monarchs.

 

[Theo520]

Which elected office does not require listening to the public, an ability to find solutions that reconcile conflict, or an ability to differentiate between the intent of a proposed policy and the actual results it is likely to produce? Which one does not need to earn respect in order to lead effectively?

There are not many occupations that voters would consider a positive on a candidate’s resume that did not involve decision-making. One could argue, actually, that a person accustomed to making decisions without having to care about what anyone else thought about their decision might have to seriously switch their noodle when they get into public office. We elect people to represent us; they don’t get to operate as if they were monarchs.

Why do you imagine that someone with senior decision making experience didn’t already learn to properly investigate a situation/problem before they make decisions?

I’m convinced their record of decision making would be awful if they did not have listening & learning skills. This record would thus not support their bid for public office.

 

[PetraG]

Why do you imagine that someone with senior decision making experience didn’t already learn to properly investigate a situation/problem before they make decisions?

I’m convinced their record of decision making would be awful if they did not have listening & learning skills. This record would thus not support their bid for public office

People with that particular kind of experience are not barred from seeking public office and often do well at the polls. What makes that particular experience so singularly superior that no one else should even be allowed to ask voters to consider their candidacy, though?

Lincoln (and many others who have served with distinction in public office) had only ever been an attorney. Surely we’d like a few attorneys around when it comes time to write laws? Even so, I wouldn’t want to exclude all candidates who haven’t passed a state bar exam from running for elected office, even when their office would be writing laws.

 

[Theo520]

You seem to have evaded the point I made, that people with senior organizational decision making experience did learn to be competent listeners.

I don’t find Lincoln very relevant to the modern world, we’ve changed quite a bit. I will say that law training is also very useful in public office or for any leadership role. Every business degree includes some courses in law.

 

[PetraG]

You seem to have evaded the point I made, that people with senior organizational decision making experience did learn to be competent listeners.

I don’t find Lincoln very relevant to the modern world, we’ve changed quite a bit. I will say that law training is also very useful in public office or for any leadership role. Every business degree includes some courses in law.

Yes, people in senior leadership have ot be listeners in an information-gathering way. Not all are listeners in the sense that they listened with the goal of satisfying everyone in the organization rather than realizing their own vision. That is the handicap that an elected official works under, after all. Someone running a business is the boss and can act like the boss. People who are elected to lead are supposed to act like and listen like servants, not bosses. Everyone they listen to wants to be seen as their boss. That is a very different situation

I will grant you, however, that those in contemporary business realize that there are enough bosses out there who listen with respect that the best employees don’t want to work for anyone else. There are a lot who run on the Lao Tzu theorem:
A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. Fail to honor people, they fail to honor you. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aims fulfilled, they will all say, "We did this ourselves.”

The problem public servants run into is that when the voters really think they did it themsleves, they don’t re-elect you. You don’t get any respect except in retrospect, and by that time you have had it with politics!

 

[Theo520]

Why in the world should a leader try to satisfy everyone?
That is a sure recipe for disaster, and likely to end up satisfying nobody very well.

Not every need or want is in the person’s best interest, or the long term interest of the community. Good decision making is about making the right compromises that get tangible results, not keeping everyone happy.

 

[PetraG]

Why in the world should a leader try to satisfy everyone?

That is a sure recipe for disaster, and likely to end up satisfying nobody very well.

Not every need or want is in the person’s best interest, or the long term interest of the community. Good decision making is about making the right compromises that get tangible results, not keeping everyone happy.

Why would an elected official try to satisfy everyone? Pretty much because they want to get re-elected. The difference is that now they have to act both as if they are trying to suck up to one extreme, belittle the other extreme, but do so in a way that attracts just enough people in the undecided center to get re-elected.

The things that get political candidates past their primaries are insane. They really are. Do you remember when bi-partisan efforts were a good thing? Now heaven FORBID that an elected official try to sponsor legislation with the “wrong” side. It is more likely to mark them as a dirty colloborator as not. Finding a “compromise” is a dirty word. You’d think every issue was based on a divinely-ordained imperative. I hate to be so open as to say it, but keeping taxes low and protecting the vulnerable from abortion and euthanasia aren’t in the same moral ballpark.

Oh, yes, the expectations put on elected officials are impossible. It has always been that way, but since the advent of “voting score-keeping” by each particular interest group, I think it is even worse.

The willingness to run for office is so irrationally optimisitic that it is almost disqualifying, LOL!!

(Yes, yes, I know: the same thing could be said for starting a business!! We aren’t talking about those who started businesses, though, but people who have run large established businesses started by others.)

 

[philipl]

Paul VI, Mother Theresa, JPII were not world leaders. There were leaders in the Catholic church. Woodrow
Wilson was openly against the limited power to the Constitution and one of the worst President ever. You can argue the starting of Big government started with him. I think Teddy was the start of it. The only reason Wilson and Churchill can be “world leaders” is the world wars they were involved in.

 

[Theo520]

They still don’t try to satisfy everyone, just the majority of their constituency.

 

[philipl]

Which elected office does not require listening to the public

Depends on what the public wants? Our federal government should be extremely limited in its scope and power.

 

[PetraG]

How on gods green earth is there a difference? Yes all from one family, of the four, 2 are die hard dems.

First of all, the President said he wanted to give bonuses to teachers who will carry guns. Where did this money for “bonuses” come from, and where was it when it was claimed that teachers are already making as much as the school systems can afford to pay them?

The proposal to give the teachers guns also includes training, which also carries a cost. Again: where does the money come from? The taxpayers already seem to resent every penny they send into schools.

 

[PetraG]

The rest of your post is nothing but logical fallacies and will be ignored.

My, isn’t that a convenient dismissal. Try again.

Where is the logical fallacy in asking where the money for the guns and training is going to come from when most teachers are not trained and do not own weapons? Being trained as a hunter and being trained as a security officer inside a school are NOT the same thing!!

Where is the logical fallacy in this:
How about the chance that it will be a student winding up wielding a teacher’s weapon because the teacher had the weapon on his or her person and the student got it? Correctional officers do not carry loaded weapons when they are in with the inmates. There is a reason for that.
Are you saying that a high school student would never dream of trying to get a teacher’s weapon from them?

Where is the logical fallacy in this?
I know a lot of teachers who are fine with having a school safety officer who is armed, because the officer doesn’t have to have close contact with students. He can pay attention to security and he can keep tabs on his weapon. He can concentrate on the kind of training necessary to handle a situation where there is a shooter in the schoool. That is not something a teacher wants to add to the to do list, instead of training all their attention on students and none on the moment-to-moment security of the loaded weapon they are carrrying.
Can someone carrying a loaded weapon in a classroom full of adolescents ever for a moment take their thoughts off of whether their weapon is accessible to a student? Is there an armed safety officer at the schools of your family members?

Where is the logical fallacy in this?
Let’s not even get started on how students, most of whom come from homes with no guns, would feel about seeing their teacher has a loaded gun strapped to his or her hip.
Are you claiming that students will not mind knowing their teacher has a loaded gun? Do you really think a teacher can carry a loaded gun and the 20 pairs of eyes always on them will never notice it or comment to each other about it?

Schools can have a lock-out system to prevent access by adults who do not belong there. This has the added advantage of keeping schools from being targets for abductions of children by non-custodial parents. The question is how to keep high school students (or someone who can pass as a high school student) from shooting up their own school. That means you have shooters who do have a way to know which teachers carry weapons and which ones don’t, who is where at what time of day, and so on. Worse yet, they live on video games in which the goal of the game is to shoot your way through a maze of armed defenders.

That isn’t a logical fallacy. It is a reasonable assessment of high school students with the kind of mental problems that leads them to murder-suicide ideation.

 

[PetraG]

Depends on what the public wants? Our federal government should be extremely limited in its scope and power.

You are begging the question. Which elected office does not require at least giving the public the impression that they are being listened to and their concerns are a priority?