Category Archives: Random Blogging

Technocrats: The Promise/Peril

There’s a lesson in the European efforts to manage the economic crisis that threatens to sink the EU. I’m just not sure what that lesson is.

Greece and Italy have replaced their political leaders with well-regarded technocrats–men whose skills and qualifications for office are professional and intellectual rather than political. It’s hard not to see this move from glad-handing politicians to technocrats as an increasingly inevitable feature of modern societies; in today’s highly complex world, where local and global issues are  more and more difficult to separate,  “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” is untenable. People in positions of public authority need a level of education and specialized expertise in order to function adequately.

The promise of technocratic governance is that it will be grounded in understanding of the challenges confronting public managers today, and better able to meet those challenges. The peril is that technocrats will be too removed from the citizens they serve–too smug in their specialized areas of knowledge to recognize the importance of the people skills that come so naturally to “retail” politicians.

We need leadership that brings both kinds of skills to the job. And those folks are rare.

Conundrum

Here’s a question I often ponder–a conundrum for which I have no good answer.

I know literally hundreds of wonderful people. They will help their neighbors, pick up litter, donate to help the victims of hurricanes. They’ll take food to bereaved families, mow the lawn of an elderly neighbor. Actually, I know very few people who aren’t genuinely nice. Some are smarter than others, some are more obtuse or self-involved, but I really think most people are basically decent.

So why do those same people often behave so badly in groups? Why do people who would never intentionally injure a neighbor or co-worker support collective actions having no other purpose than to hurt a particular group of people? Why do people in crowds act in ways they wouldn’t individually?

The “good Germans” in WWII come to mind, although that’s an extreme example.

I’m not talking about injustice or suffering that happens at a far remove–there’s a limit to how many “causes” people can focus on or care about, and as Jon Stewart has put it, most of us “have shit to do.” I’m talking about the otherwise nice people who dismiss bullying at the local school with “boys will be boys,” who excuse brutality by the local police because “they” probably had it coming,  who enthusiastically support draconian measures targeting immigrants, or who want to discontinue public welfare for poor people because “recipients are all lazy good-for-nothings.”

I guess I’m talking about people who are generally ready to help a fellow human–but who define “fellow human” to exclude a lot of people–people they would probably help if they lived next door.

Comments

Election Day

Today is election day in Indiana.

I know the system is close to broken. We’ve been subjected to negative ads because candidates believe–unfortunately, with much justification–that they cannot be elected unless they “define” their opponents. Districts have been gerrymandered. In Indiana, Republicans have worked to make it more difficult for people–especially poor people–to cast a vote. There are numerous flaws we can point to–or use as an excuse not to participate.

If we use those flaws as an excuse, however, we’re complicit. We’ll never fix what’s broken unless we participate in the political system, and the absolute minimum participation is through exercise of our franchise.

So VOTE.

Comments

Defining “Merit”

Ross Douthat had a thought-provoking column in yesterday’s New York Times.

He traced the social change that has elevated “capable, hardworking, high IQ” people into positions of power and authority–the quintessentially American belief in rewarding talent rather than social class–and he notes that it is precisely these “high IQ” people, at least in the financial arena, who have taken us off the economic cliff. He attributes the problem to “pride”–the belief entertained by many successful “self-made” people that they are invincible, that the rules that apply to others don’t really apply to them.

Douthat says that the rest of us have responded to that arrogance by embracing ignorance. (Hint: this is probably not a good idea.) And he attributes the current Republican primary field to that rejection of meritorious arrogance. He says the field can be attributed to “a revolt against the ruling class that our meritocracy has forged, and a search for outsiders with thinner resumes but better instincts.”

As Douthout points out, it won’t do America any good to “replace the arrogant with the ignorant, the overconfident with the incompetent.”

It may be time to redefine “merit” to include self-awareness, and to recognize that “intelligence” is more than IQ points. A bit of humility is the beginning of wisdom–and what America desperately needs right now is less self-assurance and bluster, and a lot more wisdom.

Comments

Underestimating Voters’ Intelligence?

I’ve made no secret of my opinion that Greg Ballard has been an unfortunate mayor–a nice enough guy who assumed office mostly because the incumbent ran a terrible campaign, and whose total lack of background and understanding of what the job requires has allowed him to be “managed” by insiders who’ve been making out like bandits.

He may win re-election (although I wouldn’t bet any real money on that possibility), but I have to wonder about his campaign’s decision to hit Melina Kennedy for decisions made by Bart Peterson. I’ve seen several ads now that essentially say “When she was Deputy Mayor, X happened and X was bad. She was responsible for X. Vote Ballard.”

Granted, in the Ballard Administration the current Deputy Mayor (who actually can define “urban” and “governance”) has been the prime mover of policy, but in most administrations, Deputy Mayors take their marching orders from the guy who won the election. They may be consulted–especially in matters where they have expertise–but they certainly don’t set policy.When I was in City Hall, the two Deputy Mayors disagreed with decisions made by the Mayor on several occasions. They communicated their opinions to the Mayor, and (appropriately) supported his policies publicly.

Deputy Mayors are assigned specific areas and tasked with implementing policy in those areas. If they do a poor job, it is certainly fair to criticize that performance, but trying to blame them for things their boss decided–or worse, for things that “happened” while their boss was in office, as they do in one of these commercials–is just silly.

Wouldn’t you expect that the people airing these campaign ads know that? Wouldn’t you think they’d expect voters to understand it?

Obviously, the folks doing Ballard’s ads don’t think we know that. They also don’t think we understand that tax rates–which Ballard’s ads tell us have “gone down during the Ballard Administration”–are determined by the Indiana General Assembly, and not by the Mayor, who deserves neither praise nor blame for the coincidence.

Granted, I am biased in this race, and further granted, I follow all these issues for a living and as a result, I’m probably more familiar with the way government works than most folks. But I find it difficult to believe that most voters don’t understand who calls the shots in an administration, and I find these ads offensive–not because they are negative (both candidates have run very negative ads), but because they assume that we voters are too stupid to know who does what.

Maybe they’re right. In which case, we are really in trouble.

Comments