Should an Intellectual Elite Rule the World?

[Harbal]

This may be an odd thing to say on a forum specifically designed for people who pride themselves in their intellects,

The pride is certainly present but the intellect isn't as abundant as you seem to think.

[Alias]

This may be an odd thing to say on a forum specifically designed for people who pride themselves in their intellects, but you have to wonder whether a truly intelligent person (or group of people) would seek political power in the first place -- or whether they would not rather prefer other pursuits that will make their own lives a lot more manageable.

Very few intellectuals, or scholars of any kind, seek public office. They're too busy doing what they're good at. Some politicians are intelligent, most are educated, many are well educated. That doesn't make them intellectuals, it just seems that way to the undereducated public.

Sometimes intelligent and decent people like Carter, McGovern and Kucinich feel duty-bound to serve their country in a leadership capacity. It usually turns out badly. In spite of his accomplishments, Jimmy Carter is not remembered as a great president, while, in spite of his shortcomings, Reagan is. Americans don't appreciate responsible, thoughtful leadership; don't respect it. They want a Big Brother.

[Obvious Leo]

Very few intellectuals, or scholars of any kind, seek public office.

It appalls me that so few scientists are ever attracted to public office. Science has the power to transform our world for both good and ill and yet the fruits of science rampage through our societies like a loose cannon aboard a mixed metaphor. Surely the way we choose to apply our exponentially advancing store of knowledge should be subjected to the scrutiny of the decision-makers of our modern world and not just left up to the plutocracy.

Regards Leo

[Wilson]

Yes, the world should be run by benevolent, intelligent dictators. (The prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew, was such a man, by all reports.) Now if someone can figure out how to arrange such a political system, let us know.

But as Alias said, having decent intellectuals in charge doesn't necessarily work out well. Intelligence and good intentions don't always bring about the best policies.

The reality is that representative democracy is probably the best system possible - but far from perfect in its results. If that's true, a better question is, who should be allowed to select one's leaders - that is, to vote? If you have universal suffrage, you'll have a bunch of dumb and/or crazy people having the same voting power as smart, rational people. I hate it that so many Americans, for instance, are superstitious, and their decisions are not evidence- and logic-based. But fairness requires that they have a say in who represents them. So let's face facts: We'll never get the great leaders we want to run our countries, but we'll get by okay, probably.

[Obvious Leo]

The reality is that representative democracy is probably the best system possible - but far from perfect in its results.

Winston Churchill once offered the view that democracy was an appalling form of government which was only marginally better than any of its alternatives.

If you have universal suffrage, you'll have a bunch of dumb and/or crazy people having the same voting power as smart, rational people.

Indeed. Democracy is government by the ignorant so the solution should be simple. Educate the demos. This might be easier said than done, I reckon.

Regards Leo

[Logic_ill]

I suppose those who truly know what is going on in politics and how it affects us, do not aspire to positions. It looks like a terrible mess to get yourself into. I've even thought that belonging to that 1% must be somewhat stressful, especially if you were in my skin because it would contradict my sense of identity. I try not to automatically assume that those who are way up there are all evil people. In today's world, someone has to be president, some people have to be at the top, etc. It's our system. It's sad that we seem to be trapped in it, and those who deeply understand it seem to have to work on other levels, in order to bring about a much needed change.

[MHopcroft1963]

The reality is that representative democracy is probably the best system possible - but far from perfect in its results. If that's true, a better question is, who should be allowed to select one's leaders - that is, to vote? If you have universal suffrage, you'll have a bunch of dumb and/or crazy people having the same voting power as smart, rational people. I hate it that so many Americans, for instance, are superstitious, and their decisions are not evidence- and logic-based. But fairness requires that they have a say in who represents them. So let's face facts: We'll never get the great leaders we want to run our countries, but we'll get by okay, probably.

Historically Americans have been fortunate that much of the time the leaders chosen in what happen to be times of crisis turn out to be competent. But it hasn't always worked out that way. And when we manufacture a crisis, which we've done with alarming frequency lately, nobody has the sense to lead out of it, nor does anyone seem to have the foresight to not get us into these messes in the first place. (For example, how anyone could have seen any sort of positive long-term consequence of invading Iraq or arming the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan is a complete mystery.)

The ideal of an intellectual elite ruling the world is as old as Plato is not older. Would a Platonic "Philosopher-King" have done any better? If anything, it probably would have been worse because his reaction to dissent would have been swift and unforgiving. He would have come to conclusions that were logical, rigorously self-examined -- and in all likelihood completely wrong.

[Wilson]

The ideal of an intellectual elite ruling the world is as old as Plato is not older. Would a Platonic "Philosopher-King" have done any better? If anything, it probably would have been worse because his reaction to dissent would have been swift and unforgiving. He would have come to conclusions that were logical, rigorously self-examined -- and in all likelihood completely wrong.

We're talking theoretically here, and in this imaginary world our philosopher-king would not only be brilliant but also wise and self-directed toward what's best for his people. Even so, as you suggested, the smartest person, using the best logic, can still come up with decisions that are counter-productive - sometimes because of incomplete information, sometimes because it's impossible to know how a particular choice will play out in the real world, with all its complications. All we could hope for is that he makes rational decisions based on what is known.

[Theophane]

Obvious Leo wrote:

It appalls me that so few scientists are ever attracted to public office. Science has the power to transform our world for both good and ill and yet the fruits of science rampage through our societies like a loose cannon aboard a mixed metaphor. Surely the way we choose to apply our exponentially advancing store of knowledge should be subjected to the scrutiny of the decision-makers of our modern world and not just left up to the plutocracy.

Science is political, no doubt about that, but I think the scientist and the politician are working at cross purposes. Maybe it's just as well that scientists are rarely attracted to public office. They aren't as good at shaking hands and kissing babies as our elected officials whose job it is to look good for the cameras.

[Alias]

.... But as Alias said, having decent intellectuals in charge doesn't necessarily work out well. Intelligence and good intentions don't always bring about the best policies.

There was nothing wrong with their policies. It's the hideously well-funded opposition that scuttles their campaigns, besmirches their reputations and defeats their initiatives.

The reality is that representative democracy is probably the best system possible

We should try it sometime. Start by kicking the lobbyists out of government and the super-pacs out of elections.

- but far from perfect in its results. If that's true, a better question is, who should be allowed to select one's leaders - that is, to vote? If you have universal suffrage, you'll have a bunch of dumb and/or crazy people having the same voting power as smart, rational people. I hate it that so many Americans, for instance, are superstitious, and their decisions are not evidence- and logic-based.

How about universal education? How about employers and pastors not telling people how to vote, and legislatures not being allowed to 'redistrict' and rig voting machines? Be a start, anyway. The leaders "we" want are not the leaders military contractors and church leaders and want.

[Wilson]

How about universal education? How about employers and pastors not telling people how to vote, and legislatures not being allowed to 'redistrict' and rig voting machines? Be a start, anyway. The leaders "we" want are not the leaders military contractors and church leaders and want.

In the US and in most developed countries we have universal education, at least to age 12 or so. But there's no cure for stupidity. And some people who get decent grades have little common sense. It's a major failing of the species that most people believe what they want to believe rather than what logic and evidence tells them.

Agree about limiting the power of lobbyists and big money, and eliminating gerrymandering. Not sure we'll get there anytime soon.

[Obvious Leo]

scientists are rarely attracted to public office. They aren't as good at shaking hands and kissing babies as our elected officials whose job it is to look good for the cameras

Scientists also have a bad habit of openly speaking their minds. I reckon this shortcoming would make for a very brief political career.

-- Updated April 20th, 2015, 11:20 am to add the following --

Of course a good scientist also regularly changes his mind if he subsequently discovers he was wrong. For a politician admitting a mistake would be suicidal.

[Wilson]

The other problem with scientists is that they are good dealing with hard facts, but most policy issues are nuanced. No right and wrong answers in an absolute sense. No one policy is going to make everyone happy - will benefit some more than others.

But in general scientists would be better than most of the politicians we have today. At least they'd be less likely to say and do obviously stupid things.

[Alias]

In the US and in most developed countries we have universal education, at least to age 12 or so.

And that's supposed to get the voter up to date on public issues, the mechanism of governance, international relations, jurisprudence and economics? In the underfunded, unregulated schools where local pressure groups can ban textbooks for mentioning Darwin or Marx? I meant education, not just something called "school".

But there's no cure for stupidity.

Maybe not. But it sure is a goldmine for the manipulative classes! I've watched the dumbing-down of America with some interest (and much nausea) for the past 40 years. It was not a natural process.

[Obvious Leo]

Maybe not. But it sure is a goldmine for the manipulative classes! I've watched the dumbing-down of America with some interest (and much nausea) for the past 40 years. It was not a natural process.

I agree. From the outside looking in it looks very much like a deliberate strategy.

But in general scientists would be better than most of the politicians we have today. At least they'd be less likely to say and do obviously stupid things.

I'm not suggesting that scientists should be ruling the world but rather that they should be given a more prominent seat at the table.

Regards Leo