h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As an engineer, I consider competence a term of praise. Engineers are not generally considered geniuses, like say successful scientists or other academics. Rather than "discovering" or "proving" something, they build stuff that works, the proof of the pudding for engineers.

I read a study a while back that showed a strong inverse link between competence and confidence. An incompetent person, having read an article somewhere, will be absolutely certain of something he has very little understanding of. Religious fundamentalists, fad dieters, investment advisors, radio talk show hosts, US presidents ... the list is long.

I fondly recall the comment of a fellow worker to another worker who was making grandiose statements: "Look, I don't know and you don't know. The difference is I know I don't know."

You make some good points, Steve. Thanks for tuning in.

The competence/self-confidence schism is noteworthy, I wish I had expounded a bit more.

I propose that all future politicians be required to prove their competence before even opening their mouths. Getting rid of the demagogues might require something more expedient.

Regarding politicians opening their mouths, a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle criticized the fact that most politicians have simply decided NOT to respond to questions, especially before an election. I think it was the non-partisan League of Women Voters questionnaire that received responses from less than half the candidates. The most common excuse was that "my opponent will use anything I say against me". So what we get from candidates is a slick ad campaign with buzzwords and patriotic images and music. Or worse, bile spewed at their opponent. But nothing on what they WILL do ... which is generally whatever their special interest, campaign donating backers want.

And after the election, we get non-answers to questions, usually delivered by a spokesperson. And ... and ... and ... OK, sorry.

I feel better now (but not much).

I've been a politician in the past and having an open mind about stuff you are not an expert in is often used against you. "You are meant to know about (insert pet subject here) if you are going to be running things. How can we vote for someone who doesn't know about it?"

How many people are witing for a politician to either say something they thoroughly agree with or thoroughly disagree with?

The party system also helps to blur things. "You have to stand for X because your party does." Even if this statement is incorrect there is the underlying truth that if the person votes for me and the party is elected then X will be stood for, even if I'm diametrically opposed to it.

The questionnaire from the League of Women Voters does not include obscure issues that could be considered "pet subjects". It includes issues like taxation, education, lobbying reform, the environment. If a candidate is unwilling to state a position on issues like these, I suspect he or she just wants to be elected, not to represent the people in the district. Then they can advance their own "pet projects" to please the special interests that provide campaign funds.

I do agree that the two party system in the USA is anti-democratic. With gerrymandered districts providing a higher re-election rate than the Soviet Politburo, Washington congressmen are virtually immune to election challenges (barring being found in bed with a dead goat or a live boy, as they say). Their only goal is to rise to a powerful chairmanship where they can direct federal money into their home district, a la the "bridge to nowhere" and countless other boondoggles.

I recall someone saying we should be glad we're not getting all the government we're paying for, but I suspect we are. Lucky us.