Fundamental Flaw of American Politics

[atvsamala]

(extraneous material removed version)
The Fundamental Flaw of American Politics

There is something fundamentally wrong with the American process of electing a president. It’s that the candidates are running on platforms and espousing solutions that they know little about. And then we, the people, are voting on those ideas when we too know little about them.

Even if our candidates were Einstein’s, even an Einstein is an expert only in his chosen field, such as physics. He’s not an expert in economics; he’s not an expert in social development; he’s not an expert in immigration.

Why are we electing people who are running on a platform they are not experts at? And why does the entire country listen to their ideas and vote whether their good or not, when we neither are experts?

If you run a business and you are going to develop a new product, or you need to find a solution to a particular problem, you go out and you hire the best brains in that field. You then put them in a laboratory where they experiment, where they try many solutions, until they see what works. And then only do you implement it and build your business upon it.

We are not doing that. Rather, we are swayed by a charismatic person who has a good sounding idea that they can speak persuasively about. The ideas sound good; but they’re not necessarily the best ideas. They haven’t been tried it in the laboratory of experience. And then we’re electing that candidate and their idea and immediately committing our national course of action to it. This is wrong. This is flawed. This is a recipe for mistakes on a colossal scale.

What we need to do is instead of electing a president based on a platform, we need to elect a president who says, “I will elicit the best minds of the country. I will draw upon the brainpool, the immense intelligence that’s there in the American people, to find the best ideas. Then, I will find a way of experimentation, a laboratory of trial and error, to try these ideas. And only then will we commit the nation to them”.

This is a fundamentally different approach to the American presidency and to leadership in general. Now the American president is not the leader touting a platform. Rather they are an executive managing resources, finding brainpower and creating experimentation. Then, when solutions emerge and are proven, they become an executive in the fullest sense of that word, meaning they execute upon the direction that has been chosen. They manage it, they implement it, they build it, but they don’t come up with it on their own.


We need to tap the brainpower of the American people. We need to find a mechanism of communication and dialogue where the best ideas rise to the top. And even the experts don’t always have the right answers. Sometimes the best ideas come out of left field, from unexpected sources; from the young guy in the mailroom who seems to knows nothing but has a fresh perspective, has an insight.

We need to elicit the experts, and we need to elicit more; we need to elicit the creative intelligence and spirit of the American people far and wide, educated and uneducated, experienced and inexperienced. And even wider, we may need to tap, we should tap, the brainpower of the world, for many of our problems have effects and causes that are worldwide. Many of “our” problems, such as the immigration problem, have their roots in other countries. We need to look for solutions there too.

And then we need to experiment upon these ideas in relative zones of safety to see if the solutions really work. Only then we should act. What we are doing now in electing a president is not only dangerous, but it’s stupid. We have all bought in to a collective decision making process that is flawed, that is wrong, and is recipe for making wrong decisions.

Lets wake up from this illusion. Lets get smart. Lets use the smarts of the entire nation. Great things are possible when we all put our heads together.




The Fundamental Flaw of American Politics

There is something fundamentally wrong with the American process of electing a president. It has nothing to do with the various parties, or the quality of the candidates, though there is much that could be said about that too. Rather, it has to do with the fact that the candidates are running on platforms and are espousing solutions that they know little about.

The issue is that, even if these people were Einstein’s and brilliant, and none of them are, though there are some very intelligent and good people in the politic race, even an Einstein is an expert only in his chosen field, such as physics. He’s not an expert in economics; he’s not an expert in social development; he’s not an expert in immigration.

So the problem is that we’re electing people who are running on a platform, “I will do this to solve that problem”, when these people are not experts at that. It’s good they’ve come up with ideas. And there are many good ideas they are having, yet who are they to espouse an idea and a solution, of which they are not an expert? And then, the whole country listens to that idea and decides whether that’s good or that’s not good, and then vote on it, when we neither are experts.

If you run a business and you are going to develop a new product, or you need to find a solution to a particular problem, you go out and you hire the best brains in that field. You then put them in a laboratory where they experiment, where they try many solutions, until they see what works. And then only do you implement it and build your business upon it.

We are not doing that. Rather, we are swayed by a charismatic person who has a good sounding idea that they can speak persuasively about. The ideas sound good; but they’re not the best ideas. They haven’t been tried it in the laboratory of experience. And then we’re electing that candidate and their idea and immediately committing our course of action to it.

This is wrong. This is flawed. This is a recipe for disaster. What we need to do is instead of electing a president based on a platform, we need to elect a president who says, “I will elicit the best minds of the country. I will draw upon the brainpool, the immense intelligence that’s there in the American people, to find the best ideas. Then, I will find a way of experimentation, a laboratory of trial and error, to try these ideas. And only then will we commit the nation to them”.

This is a fundamentally different approach to the American presidency and to leadership in general. Now the American president is not the leader touting a platform. Rather they are an executive managing resources, finding brainpower and creating experimentation. Then, when solutions emerge and are proven, they become an executive in the fullest sense of that word, meaning they execute upon the direction that has been chosen. They manage it, they implement it, they build it, but they don’t come up with it on their own.

This is a different approach to government. It’s different approach to handling the problems that we face as a nation. We need to tap the brainpower of the American people. And even wider, we may need to tap, we should tap, the brainpower of the world, for many of our problems have effects and causes that are worldwide.

We need to create a mechanism to gather in the wisdom of the brainpool. We need to find a mechanism of communication and dialogue where the best ideas rise to the top. And even the experts don’t always have the right answers. Sometimes the best ideas come out of left field, from unexpected sources; from the young guy in the mailroom who seems to knows nothing, but has a fresh perspective, has an insight. We need to elicit the experts, and we need to elicit more. We need to elicit the creative intelligence and spirit of the American people far and wide, educated and uneducated, experienced and inexperienced.

And then we need to experiment upon these ideas in relative zones of safety to see if the solutions really work. Only then we should act. What we are doing now in electing a president, is not only dangerous, but it’s stupid. We have all bought in to a collective decision making process that is flawed, that is wrong, and is recipe for making wrong decisions.

Lets wake up from this illusion. Lets get smart. Lets use the smarts of the entire nation. Great things are possible when we all put our heads together.








Original don’t edit

The Fundamental Flaw of American Politics

There is something fundamentally wrong with the American process of electing a president. It has nothing to do with the various parties, or the quality of the candidates, though there is much that could be said about that too. Rather, it has to do with the fact that the candidates are running on platforms and are espousing solutions that will solve many problems.

The issue is that, even if these people were Einstein’s and brilliant, and none of them are, though there are some very intelligent and good people, even an Einstein is an expert only in his chosen field, such as physics. He’s not an expert in economics; he’s not an expert in social development; he’s not an expert in immigration.

So the problem is that we’re electing people who are running on a platform, “I will do this to solve that problem”. When these people are not experts at that. It’s good they’ve come up with ideas. There are many good ideas out there, yet who are they to espouse an idea and a solution, of which they are not an expert, and then for the whole country to listen to that idea and think that’s good or that’s not good, and then vote on it, when we neither are experts.

If you run a business and you are going to develop a new product, or you need to find a solution, you go out and you hire the best brains in that area. You then put them in a laboratory where they experiment, where they try many solutions, until they see what works. And then only do you implement it and build your business upon it.

We are not doing that in America. Rather, we’re finding a charismatic person, who has an idea that they can speak powerfully about, that may sound good; but they’re not the best brains, they haven’t tried it in the laboratory of experience. And then we’re electing them.

This is wrong. This is flawed. This is a recipe for disaster. What we need to do is instead of electing a president based on a platform, we need to elect a president who says, I will elicit the best minds of the country. I will draw upon the brain pool, the immense intelligence that’s there in the American people, to find the best ideas. Then, I will find a way of experimentation, a laboratory of trial and error, to try these ideas. And only then will we commit the nation to them.

This is a fundamentally different approach to the American presidency and to leadership in general. Now the American president is not the leader touting a platform. Rather they are an executive managing resources, finding brain power, creating experimentation, and then, when solutions emerge and are proven, then they become an executive in the fullest sense of that word, meaning they execute upon the direction that has been chosen. They manage it, they implement it, they build it, but they don’t come up with it on their own.

This is another approach to government. It’s another approach to handling the problems that we face as a nation. For we do face problems – large problems, tremendous problems. We need to tap the brain power of the American people. And even wider, we may need to tap, we should tap, the brainpower of the world, for many of our problems have effects and causes world wide.

We need to create a mechanism to gather in the wisdom of the brain pool. We need to find a mechanism of communication and dialogue where the best ideas rise to the top, and then where we experiment upon them in relative zones of safety. To see if the solutions really work. Then we should act. What we are doing now, in electing a president, is not only dangerous, but it’s stupid. We have all bought in to a collective decision making process because that’s the way its always been done, that is flawed, that is wrong, and is ultimately a recipe for making wrong decisions.

Lets wake up from this illusion of behavior. Lets get smart. Lets use the smarts of the entire nation. Miracles are possible when we all put our heads together.



And even the experts don’t even always have the right answers. Sometimes the best ideas come out of left field, from unexpected sources; from the young guy in the mailroom who knows nothing, but has a fresh perspective, has an insight. We need to elicit the experts, and we need to elicit more. We need to elicit the creative intelligence and spirit of the American people far and wide, educated and uneducated, experienced and inexperienced.

Kabir Jaffe
http://www.essencetraining.com
kabir@iucis.edu

[RogerFGay]

Yep. And what the candidates say often has little to do with the policies they'll put in place. They're still misinforming all the way up through the law making process, after it's passed, and while people are complaining about the results. What candidates say is developed by statisticians and PR consultants to implement a strategy based on demographics. It's entirely separate from the actual policy development process. It's like letting marketing write sales material and user manuals for technology they know nothing about. The engineering department creates something based on their ideas about what should be done. The sales material and user manuals don't match. It's all been handled by granting government agencies more autonomy and power. They get huge amounts of money and increased police powers, and the politicians go back to doing what they do. When the s hits the f, politicians repeat their sales pitches for a while and then claim it's somebody else's responsibility.

The analysis of what needs to be done is quite simple (not saying there's any perfect solution to politics). There is no pressure in the two party system to address issues more realistically because there is not sufficient competition. It needs to be easier to broaden participation, and to allow important grass roots movements a place in the national debate (other than those promoted by the two parties or larger communication companies).

We need to admit that the political system is not operating as defined in the constitution. We do not have a nonpartisan system. We most assuredly have an extremely limited partisan system in practice. We need to admit that we have a partisan system and modify it so that it's a good partisan system; with proportional representation.

[DesertFox]

atvsamala, are you the author of the opening post(s)? If not, board policy mandates use of no more than 25% of the original. Please trim it back to that level.

Thanks.

[DesertFox]

atvsamala, I think you misunderstand what you see on the teevee. Do you seriously think the candidates are presenting themselves as experts? They present themselves as leaders, not as experts. They have to know enough about a subject to speak persuasively, but none I'm aware of has ever presented himself as an expert in all that stuff except Al Gore, laughingstock of the universe.

we need to elect a president who says, “I will elicit the best minds of the country. I will draw upon the brainpool, the immense intelligence that’s there in the American people, to find the best ideas. This is just what the prez does. Ever heard the phrase, "the best and brightest"? That was the Kennedy inner circle. McGeorge Bundy. Robert McNamara. et al. They were experts and almost scarily brilliant men. And they pert near ruined us.

Then, I will find a way of experimentation, a laboratory of trial and error, to try these ideas. And only then will we commit the nation to them”. This is just what Mussolini and other fascists (including the worst one) said and did. Prior to them, it's what Woody Wilson said and did and prior to him it's what Teddy Roosevelt said and did. It's what the Progressives (early modern liberals) urged during the 1890's. Experiment. Try this and that. Prollem was, and remains, that any time Congress funds something, that thing immediately sprouts a constituency. You might say you want to experiment with the idea of putting a man on Mars by 2020. Immediately people would choose sides. You'd have a group making money off the idea by pushing it, and another group making money off that same idea by opposing it. In one way or another, each would end up being financed by the taxpayer.