This is something thats been bugging me for a while but I think too many of our political leaders are cut from the same piece of cloth. There is too much representation of lawyers and law, and not enough from philosophy and history
I understand that a politician needs to know the law in order to legislate and enforce it, and I also understand that just because someone studied philosophy, it doesnt mean he wont be a criminal like the Illinois governor
Still, while some leaders are from fields like medicine (Howard Dean comes to mind), I believe too much of our top executives are lawyers and guys who study law. I would feel much safer and secure knowing that a majority of our leaders had Ph.D’s in philosophy, psychology, sociology, public service, and history
At the very least, it would lead to a better discussion in the public sphere about why someone would support, lets say stem cells, without resorting to legalese that so many politicians tries to use
I’m conflicted: OTOneH lawyers should be prevented from holding public office because it’s a conflict of interest; OTOH any citizen should be eligible for elected positions.
I agree with you and would take it one step further. Why do they have to have Ph.D’s at all? I have concerns about the insularity of academics. A spinkling of businessmen and even tradesmen would hurt anything.
I don’t think there’s a single front bench MP in the British Parliament with a science degree (the Tories had a medic as shadow health secretary for a while), which is probably why funding keeps getting slashed to the EPSRC and MRC :rolleyes:
Our current Prime Minister has a Master’s degree in Economics; the leader of the Opposition party has a PhD in History from Harvard. We’ll see how it goes.
ETA: Forgot to mention that the leader of the Opposition party of Canada hasn’t actually been in Canada for the last 30 years.
This is a red herring. A lot of people go into law because they are interested in government. A lot of people go into politics because of their exposure through the law. Law and government are inextricably intertwined and a lot of the skills and talents – such as negotiation, compromise, and persuasion – are common.
If you think this is a problem, rather than pointing to lawyers and the law, go to people in other occupations and start persuading them to enter public service. At least part of the problem is that people like engineers and computer scientists often aren’t as comfortable with the ideas of negotiation, compromise, and persuasion, and being subject to public opinion. I certainly am not willing to subject myself to public opinion, so I will never run for office.
A lot of the religious righties have hit this wall – they got the persuasion part down right, but when they actually got into power, it has been revealed that they are essentially unable to govern a heterogeneous, democratic system.
Thats true acsenray, and I wish I noted that in my original post. I suppose that I’m just disappointed that more non-lawyers arent drawn to politics
When was the last time we had a good philosopher in high office though? Other than the details of a law, it seems they are equally qualified as lawyers for public service
How does being a philosopher by itself qualify you? Serving in a political office requires a combination of skills, none of which seem to be essential for being a philosopher. Off the bat, I can say that the study and practice of philosophy doesn’t actually require you to make any decisions, which is routine for public office. It also doesn’t require you to compromise and engage in private and public persuasion.
Political philosophers grapple with the issue of the relationship between the state and the individual; so do lawyers, every day in criminal court. Any time you see a report of a case where the defence was trying to have evidence excluded because of errors made by the police, you are seeing lawyers arguing that same issue of the relationship between the state and the individual, as applied to a particular case, and as governed by general rules that will apply to other cases.
Philosophers ask, how should individuals treat each other in their private lives? what is ethical and moral? Lawyers also grapple with that same issue, any time a couple is splitting up and they are disputing how to divide the property.
And when a business goes south and there are a range of creditors - when is it appropriate to hold someone to his word, and when is it appropriate to release him from his word, via bankruptcy? and how do we determine how to divide the limited assets amongst the various creditors? what elements is it fair to consider?
And then there’s the range of ethical issues that lawyers must grapple with, as applied to a particular case. Lawyers owe duties to their clients, to the courts, to their opponents. How do they reconcile those duties when they conflict in a particular case?
Overall, the average lawyer is always faced with questions about how to apply general rules to particular cases. What is the appropriate range of conduct open to the client? what is the appropriate range for the lawyer? conflict resolution and negotiation, based on a mixture of principles and self-interest, play an important part of lawyers’ duties.
Law and philosophy are not such polar opposites as the OP suggests.
Philosophy, so I’ve been told, is one of the better undergraduate degrees one can obtain on the way to a law degree. Philosophy teaches you how to think, which is valuable, since in law school you need to adapt your mind to a new way of looking at things. Philosophy also introduces the student to the Socratic method, the method by which most law school subjects are taught. In my book, philosophy grads have a leg up on, say, pre-law students.
Max Torque (B.A.-philosophy; J.D.)
(although I do wish I’d taken some classes in accounting)
This completely misses the point. Law might be applied philosophy, but it has nothing to do with the other skills required for politics and government. Government is not merely the application of principles to practice. It is foremost a social/human interaction. Yes, legal and philosophical principles might form a background to decision making, but they are insufficient for governance.
No, that would mean that novelists and poets would be likely to make good politicians too. There are skill of face-to-face interation, public performance, and persuasion in the mix too, as well as actual knowledge of the way government works.
I suppose we could have the lawyers practice welding, the welders practice denistry, the dentists practice law making, etc., but all in all, I’d rather if a significant portion of elected law makers had a background in law.
Might want to look into what the study and practice of law involves, and in second degree jurisdictions (e.g. USA) what backgrounds lawyers come from before they enter the study of law.
Don’t a lot of lawyers study the very bullshit history and philosophy majors the OP is endorsing before they go to law school?
It doesn’t matter what your degree is in if you are a moron.
To me, it almost sounds like the OP is saying something along the lines of “there are too many MBA’s in business”. I don’t see why it isn’t better to study something relevant to your profession as opposed to studying something that is barely relevant to anything at all. If you go into business, you need to have an understanding of marketing, economics, accounting, finance, operations as well as the specifics of your industry. I have to assume that if you are going to be in government or politics where you will be making laws, you might want to learn legal procedure.
Ultimately, it’s just a degree. How relevant is 2-3 years of school compared to the rest of the experience one recieves over a 40+ year career?
Quite frankly, I want to see people who have show a track record or success and ethical decision making. That can be in business, law, the military or whatever. I don’t agree with the concept that the man on the street can make an effective leader or politician.
Conceptually, lawyers are trained in how to focus on tiny details, interpretations, and specifics. Conceptually, I want a President who is focused on big picture rather than tiny details, on philosophy rather than intepretation, and on generalities rather than specifics.
On the other hand, when we get business-people in office (such as Dick Cheney), I don’t think we get the kind of visionary thinking that one might hope for.
