Lowering age of candidacy

[naronic]

Age of candidacy is the minimum age at which a person can legally qualify to hold certain elected government offices. In many cases, it also determines the age at which a person may be eligible to stand for an election or be granted ballot access.

Many youth rights groups view current age of candidacy requirements as unjustified age discrimination. Occasionally people who are younger than the minimum age will run for an office in protest of the requirement or because they don't know that the requirement exists. On extremely rare occasions, young people have been elected to offices they do not qualify for and have been deemed ineligible to assume the office.

This is unfair for many reasons, 20 year old's are allowed to vote but not to run for office, there's no willingness to represent the younger crowd in congress. In the US, in most states the lowest age of candidacy is 25 to be a representative. A lot of other countries don't have this system such as in the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Germany (for all non-presidency positions) where the age of candidacy is at a minimum of 18.

The age of candidacy should be 18 for all government offices including presidency, the same age as the age of voting.
your thoughts?

[TheMason]

At 5/25/13 03:06 PM, naronic wrote: The age of candidacy should be 18 for all government offices including presidency, the same age as the age of voting.
your thoughts?

Not just no...but fuck no.

At 18 or 20...what do you really know that equips you to handle the responsibility of holding those offices?

Also, let's look at the stereotype that it is the youth behind innovation: it is dead wrong. Here is an excerpt from a 2010 Newsweek article:

It turns out that many of the most common stereotypes about aging are dead wrong. Take the cliche of the youthful entrepreneur. As it turns out, the average founder of a high-tech startup isnâEUTMt a whiz-kid graduate, but a mature 40-year-old engineer or business type with a spouse and kids who simply got tired of working for others, says Duke University scholar Vivek Wadhwa, who studied 549 successful technology ventures. WhatâEUTMs more, older entrepreneurs have higher success rates when they start companies. ThatâEUTMs because they have accumulated expertise in their technological fields, have deep knowledge of their customersâEUTM needs, and have years of developing a network of supporters (often including financial backers). "Older entrepreneurs are just able to build companies that are more advanced in their technology and more sophisticated in the way they deal with customers," Wadhwa says. [emphasis mine]

Furthermore, your point is blunted by the fact that holding elected office is NOT the only way that people can exert influence over government. I read somewhere that Congress creates less than 200 new laws every year...while agencies (part of the executive branch) create over 2,500 new regulations that have the force of law per year. Guess what? Go to college, get a degree and at 22 get a GS job in a federal or state agency that deals with the concern you find most pressing...and learn how to influence what the government does with that issue.

You'll start to learn what works and does not work, and understand why what seems such a simple fix...does not work.

See modern society has extended adolescence. So the level of maturity of an 18yo in 1975 is not acheived by today's youth until about 24-25. This means many teens and young twenty-somethings are still in this stage of immaturity that sees themselves as somehow unique and different from older generations as they develop an identity (ie: find themselves). Idealism sprouts from this, here's an excerpt from a psychological journal:

Adolescents' idealism coincides with their enhanced sense of uniqueness, self consciousness, and critical thinking. Combined with the increase in family conflict during early adolescence, these changes heighten adolescents' need for peer approval. Conformity to the peer group peaks at approximately twelve to fourteen years of age.
SOURCE

The psychologist Piaget defines Naive Idealism as:
Hypothetico-deductive thinking leads to this outlook. Adolescents can use this powerful intellectual tool to think of an ideal world and to compare the real world to it. Real world falls short of ideal world--> dissapointment. (may want to change it)
SOURCE

and:

Thus they may be idealistic about and devoted to social, political, religious, and ethical issues- global warming, world hunger, animal rights, and so on. Piaget suggested that adolescent idealism reflects an inability to seperate one's own logical abstrations from the perspectives of others and from practical considerations. Only through experience do adolescents eventually begin to temper their optimism with some realism about what is possible in a given time frame and with limited resources. [emphasis mine]
SOURCE

====

It would be foolish to lower the age for holding office to 18. You may be very smart, but you are only book smart at this age. You haven't had the experiences of success and failure in any real or meaningful way (yes...I know there are exceptions; my ex-wife was one of those when we were 18).

If anything, given that people's maturity rate has slowed...perhaps the age to hold office needs to be increased from 25 to 30.

[Angry-Hatter]

Well, my representative in the European Parliament just so happens to be the youngest member of that body in the history of the EU. She ran for the office when she was 22 years old, but didn't assume her office until two years later when the Lisbon treaty was fully ratified, when she was 24 years old.

I must say that I am extremely pleased with how I voted given that she is among the most capable and intelligent politicians I have ever seen. I hope like hell that she decides to run for reelection in 2014, in which case she is guaranteed my vote.

I believe we ought to judge a candidate based on his or her merits rather than using their age to disqualify them. Capable and intelligent under-25 candidates are no doubt less common than capable above-25 candidates, but that's not to say that there aren't any at all or that we can write off the whole entire age group as incompetent.

[Thecrazyman]

At 5/25/13 03:06 PM, naronic wrote: Age of candidacy is the minimum age at which a person can legally qualify to hold certain elected government offices. In many cases, it also determines the age at which a person may be eligible to stand for an election or be granted ballot access.

Many youth rights groups view current age of candidacy requirements as unjustified age discrimination. Occasionally people who are younger than the minimum age will run for an office in protest of the requirement or because they don't know that the requirement exists. On extremely rare occasions, young people have been elected to offices they do not qualify for and have been deemed ineligible to assume the office.

This is unfair for many reasons, 20 year old's are allowed to vote but not to run for office, there's no willingness to represent the younger crowd in congress. In the US, in most states the lowest age of candidacy is 25 to be a representative. A lot of other countries don't have this system such as in the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Germany (for all non-presidency positions) where the age of candidacy is at a minimum of 18.

The age of candidacy should be 18 for all government offices including presidency, the same age as the age of voting.
your thoughts?

This alone points out to the very reason on why many people forget that Age & Maturity just don't mix, the only thing that ever comes close is growing up as the people we choose to become, thus the reason why kids need to grow up as people first.

Taken for granted many people if not a lot of people within the United States of America have brought up a number of "Age Restrictions" and the higher the restrictions, the more they are forgetting on why Age and Maturity just don't mix, I have said it before and I will say again.

Why I say before and again? That's because people need to learn on why Age and Maturity just don't mix, whatever the easy way or the hard way matters not, the only thing that matters so is this. Human beings refusing to learn on why Age & Maturity don't mix with the only thing that comes close is growing up is a "major" form of human mess-up, which is something that just shouldn't be repeated.

[Dawnslayer]

At 5/25/13 09:18 PM, Thecrazyman wrote:

At 5/25/13 03:06 PM, naronic wrote: The age of candidacy should be 18 for all government offices including presidency, the same age as the age of voting.
your thoughts?

This alone points out to the very reason on why many people forget that Age & Maturity just don't mix, the only thing that ever comes close is growing up as the people we choose to become, thus the reason why kids need to grow up as people first.

Agree one hundred percent, but this brings up a problem of its own: how do you measure maturity? I can't name anyone off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are a number of politicians in office right now who wouldn't pass a standardized maturity test.

[TheMason]

At 5/25/13 06:23 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: I must say that I am extremely pleased with how I voted given that she is among the most capable and intelligent politicians I have ever seen. I hope like hell that she decides to run for reelection in 2014, in which case she is guaranteed my vote.

Here's the question for you though: how can you be sure when you're the same age as her and still at the same level of maturity?

The votes she casts may fit with your sense of idealism...but are they votes that will result in good policy? Or will they produce unintended consequences that will hurt people.

This is the problem though: intelligence is only one quality we should look for in our elected officials. It is not necessarily the most important.

I believe we ought to judge a candidate based on his or her merits rather than using their age to disqualify them. Capable and intelligent under-25 candidates are no doubt less common than capable above-25 candidates, but that's not to say that there aren't any at all or that we can write off the whole entire age group as incompetent.

Here's the thing though: what merits does someone really have at 18-25?
* At 18 you have a high school diploma.
* At 22 you're graduating from college.
* At 25 you can have a law degree.
* At 26 you can have a medical degree.
* At 27 you're getting your PhD.

Those are all notable achievements...and indicative of your intelligence and capability. But you're missing one very important qualification: experience. University shields students from the real world. You do not have grown-up responsibilities while you're in University (I'm a lifelong learner...so I'm pretty in touch with campus life and issues). This is why many sociologists and psychologists think we're extending adolesence into the late 20s in the Western World.

Now, where I think we would find a few exceptions are in small redneck towns. The reason: there are some kids who start working the family business in middle school and pick-up a lot about real world responsibility. Some have even paid off car loans by or buying a house at 18. Some of these are real entrepreneurs who start businesses themselves from the ground up and struggle to make them work.

Unlike many of the tech whiz kids who every once and awhile piece together other's innovations in a new way, while safe under the umbrella of Mommy & Daddy's money. While I do not want to diminish the accomplishments of someone like Zuckerberg, at the same time I do not want to over-inflate them either. He didn't have to worry about grown-up responsibilities and make ends meet, or struggle or sacrifice like 99% of business owners and CEOs have had to do. So how helpful would his experience be in helping him legislate over issues that cover all of American business?

Experience matters...combine it with intelligence you have wisdom. And wisdom is the most important qualification/merit for elective office. So by your own yardstick of measuring people by their merits: how high do the vast majority of 18-24 year olds possess enough wisdom to be entrusted with legislative responsibility?

====

There is also another problem with electing younger people to office: do we really want to encourage elected office as a career? Do we want legislators and presidents/prime ministers who know nothing other than electoral politics? This is how we get bad public policy: people in office passing laws that are popular...not the right/wise/good thing to do.

Obama is an example of this. I've said it before: I find the guy personally likable. I think he is high intelligent. He fits my perception of how a president should look and carry himself. However, the man (even after amost 5 years as president) lacks the experience to be president. He did not come into office with any real accomplishments in either the public or private sectors. And the result is his signature/legacy piece of legislation is a nightmare of implementation and there are three scandals going on that highlights he is not even an able politician...the one thing you could say he's made a career of. The reason he is struggling: he lacks experience.

[Ericho]

I'm interested as to how we came up with the rule of a President having to be at least thirty-five years old. Maybe we could study other countries with younger leaders.

Oh yeah.

[Thecrazyman]

At 5/25/13 11:03 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 5/25/13 09:18 PM, Thecrazyman wrote:

At 5/25/13 03:06 PM, naronic wrote: The age of candidacy should be 18 for all government offices including presidency, the same age as the age of voting.
your thoughts?

This alone points out to the very reason on why many people forget that Age & Maturity just don't mix, the only thing that ever comes close is growing up as the people we choose to become, thus the reason why kids need to grow up as people first.

Agree one hundred percent, but this brings up a problem of its own: how do you measure maturity? I can't name anyone off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are a number of politicians in office right now who wouldn't pass a standardized maturity test.

I think the best way to measure one's own maturity is to determine how well they do when it comes to taking responsibility for one's own actions, take for example if one dose something where such an individual requires to take responsibility for one's actions, such individual is mature but if one individual dose something where one is required to take responsibility for one's actions and doesn't consider the responsibility first hand, that individual is considered immature for that reason.

If one can handle the responsibility of graphic violent images on TV then the individual is mature enough to handle it, if one can't handle graphic the responsibility of violent images on TV then the individual is immature for that reason, if oneself can handle graphic sex images on TV then oneself is mature for that reason, if oneself can't handle graphic sex images on TV then oneself is immature for that reason and if oneself can handle the job of a political position, oneself is mature for that reason for if oneself isn't able to handle the job of a political position then oneself is immature for that very reason.

Maturity involves taking responsibility for one's own actions and being immature in trade involves not taking responsibility for one's own actions, another reason why people need to realize (such as TheMason) that Age & Maturity just don't mix because mixing Age with Maturity is like mixing Fresh Spring Water with Poisonous Crude Oil and the results are disaster, nothing more but disaster and nothing less but disaster which is already been happening for quite a long period.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/26/13 09:41 AM, TheMason wrote: Here's the question for you though: how can you be sure when you're the same age as her and still at the same level of maturity?

True, she and I are about the same age, but I freely admit that she is far (far) more knowledgeable and mature that I am. I've seen her hold her own remarkably well against politicians 40 years her senior in debates and interviews. From as objective a standpoint as I can take, she is an excellent communicator with a superb command of her subject matter.

The votes she casts may fit with your sense of idealism...but are they votes that will result in good policy? Or will they produce unintended consequences that will hurt people.

Obviously I think her votes make for good policy, otherwise I wouldn't support her. It's quite a big leap to assume that her votes will result in the harm of other people merely based on her relative youth. Might I say, prejudiced, even?

This is the problem though: intelligence is only one quality we should look for in our elected officials. It is not necessarily the most important.

Nor did I say it was.

Experience matters...combine it with intelligence you have wisdom. And wisdom is the most important qualification/merit for elective office. So by your own yardstick of measuring people by their merits: how high do the vast majority of 18-24 year olds possess enough wisdom to be entrusted with legislative responsibility?

Is the answer you're looking for, "none whatsoever"?

I freely admit that you're less likely to find a capable legislator or candidate in an 18-24 year old than you are with a 50 year old, but there is a process in which we might eliminate unsuitable 18-24 from being elected to high office. It's called "elections". It is faulty logic to assume that allowing 18-24 year olds to run for office would lead to a groundswell of people from that age group actually being elected. The limit in the House is 25 years already, yet the average Representative is 57 years old, more than twice the minimum age requirement; people naturally prefer older, more experienced candidates anyway, so what is changing the minimum age requirement by a few years going to do to they overall average? Likely not that much.

It's unlikely that there are very many 18-24 year olds that are qualified and mature enough to be successful in federal elected office, but that's not to say that there are none at all in that age group who would do well (you admitted as much yourself with regards to the "redneck" kids). Therefore, I cannot see the logic in excluding otherwise capable candidates, writing them off as incompetent out of hand, based solely on their age.

There is also another problem with electing younger people to office: do we really want to encourage elected office as a career? Do we want legislators and presidents/prime ministers who know nothing other than electoral politics? This is how we get bad public policy: people in office passing laws that are popular...not the right/wise/good thing to do.

The converse also holds some merit though. Do we want young people to view government as an impenetrable Old Boys club, discouraging them from getting involved in politics and having their voices heard? I feel that we need MORE people, especially young people, getting involved in the political process, not less. Even the simple opportunity to stand on a debate stage across from political giants and making a case for why you would do a better job than any of them as a representative would be an invaluable experience, even if you only have a snowballs chance in hell of actually winning.

Obama is an example of this. I've said it before: I find the guy personally likable. I think he is high intelligent. He fits my perception of how a president should look and carry himself. However, the man (even after amost 5 years as president) lacks the experience to be president. He did not come into office with any real accomplishments in either the public or private sectors. And the result is his signature/legacy piece of legislation is a nightmare of implementation and there are three scandals going on that highlights he is not even an able politician...the one thing you could say he's made a career of. The reason he is struggling: he lacks experience.

Obama's problem runs far deeper than what any amount of experience could have remedied. He simply doesn't have the temperament of a leader. He is far too careful and too concerned with being "liked". He wants to be recognized as being a highly "reasonable" president who brings everyone together and finds compromise with his political enemies (who I doubt he even has the wits to consider his enemies). After being pommeled again and again in negotiations, you'd think that he'd have learned by now that this approach is doomed to failure.

This is not a result of Obama's supposed inexperience, it is a deep seeded personality trait that he carries with him for whatever reason (his upbringing perhaps? I dunno, I'm no psychologist). I believe he could have spent a lifetime in any given profession without this aspect of his personality magically changing.

[Camarohusky]

You claim that the young folks are left out because they can't run. This claim is flawed in that the age of those who run isn't relevant when it comes to how they vote. How they vote is dictated by those who vote for them, and damn near everyone age 18 and up has the right to effect their rep's voting by voting themselves.

Also, I do believe that with age comes emotional fortitude. Many twenty somethings, and even many thirty somethings still lack the mental strength needed to see an issue and confront it properly.

I see no benefit of lowering the ge of candidacy as I see nothing new that will come that isn't around now.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/26/13 11:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You claim that the young folks are left out because they can't run. This claim is flawed in that the age of those who run isn't relevant when it comes to how they vote. How they vote is dictated by those who vote for them, and damn near everyone age 18 and up has the right to effect their rep's voting by voting themselves.

Irrelevant. Pointing out a right that 18-24 year olds have in no way makes up for the right that they lack. The point isn't that they have NO way of influencing their elected officials, just that they lack one ability in particular; the ability to challenge someone for an elected office. Unless you can think of a good reason for discriminating against ALL people within that age-group, you're not contributing much.

Also, I do believe that with age comes emotional fortitude. Many twenty somethings, and even many thirty somethings still lack the mental strength needed to see an issue and confront it properly.

Many = all?

I see no benefit of lowering the ge of candidacy as I see nothing new that will come that isn't around now.

18-24 year olds being fully enfranchised citizens (note: FULLY) capable of standing for elected office? We have that now?

[Entice]

At 5/26/13 09:41 AM, TheMason wrote: Those are all notable achievements...and indicative of your intelligence and capability. But you're missing one very important qualification: experience. University shields students from the real world. You do not have grown-up responsibilities while you're in University (I'm a lifelong learner...so I'm pretty in touch with campus life and issues). This is why many sociologists and psychologists think we're extending adolesence into the late 20s in the Western World.

How? Campuses aren't bubbles that stop people from taking on responsibilities. There's quite a few people that begin working at 16 and have to find ways to get through college without their parents help. Saying that no college students take on "real-life" responsibilities is a huge generalization.

Now, where I think we would find a few exceptions are in small redneck towns.
Unlike many of the tech whiz kids...

Those are just stereotypes lol. I know a gay Indian guy that's putting himself through med school by working as a manager at a retail store. What would you do if I said that rednecks can't work based solely on my personal experiences?

As for the rest of your post... economic success has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to govern. Running a business has nothing to do with politics or public policy. Given the choice between a political science major that understands the field and a small business owner with considerably less knowledge, I'd choose the former. That knowledge comes from real life, it can be used to make real life decisions.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/27/13 12:21 AM, Entice wrote: Given the choice between a political science major that understands the field and a small business owner with considerably less knowledge, I'd choose the former.

Case in point: Joe the Plumber ran for a House seat in 2012. Would anyone honestly consider him more qualified for the House of Representatives than, say, a 23 year old PoliSci graduate?

[Camarohusky]

At 5/27/13 12:33 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Case in point: Joe the Plumber ran for a House seat in 2012. Would anyone honestly consider him more qualified for the House of Representatives than, say, a 23 year old PoliSci graduate?

No. But I would definitely consider the 23 year old polisci graduate to be about 1,000 times less qualified than a 35 year old attorney who has practiced for the past decade.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/26/13 11:58 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Irrelevant. Pointing out a right that 18-24 year olds have in no way makes up for the right that they lack. The point isn't that they have NO way of influencing their elected officials, just that they lack one ability in particular; the ability to challenge someone for an elected office. Unless you can think of a good reason for discriminating against ALL people within that age-group, you're not contributing much.

18-24 year olds CAN challenge someone for an elected office. They can find a candidate who follows their views and put their full support behind that candidate. There is little to no benefit to a demographic for having a member of that demographic in office. If a white 50 something male can represent the black demographic better than a black 40 something male, a 25 year old (or even a 50 year old) can represent the young adult just fine.

Many = all?

If there are many people of age to run for office that are not mature enough, that doesn't bode well for younger age groups. I live in a locale where the young are highly involved. Yet, we can't fix our crumbling bridges because we're spending all of our money on 'art' and they just voted down science in favor of voodoo cleanliness. I don't think the young are stupid. They're not What they are is: impulsive; irrational; idealistic to a fault of not knowing or listening to valid opposition; have a very warped set of priorities. It takes years of life, being thrust out into the world on one's own, and having to care for onesself and one's family, as well as seeing how things work on the ground (as opposed to the textbooks) to truly understand what needs to be done.

Ask any returning education folk about the k-grad school types in their program. They're all about the academics of the issue and seem to forget that in every field there's ground work and human realities that come in. They're the folks who think economic theory is sacrosanct and the human condition has no effect. They're the ones that think they can outthink a jury, or that a minute detail is actually important in a real life analysis. They're the ones that think you can design a perfectly functioning machine solely on a computer without building a test model. They're lack of knowledge comes from one thing, lack of experience. So, how does one truly undertand how to get a law that will work passed when all they have done is read a few books and participated in a mock UN?

I mean, if it makes you feel better we could set a requirement that one has to have worked for at least 5 years (for the current 25 year old offices), 15 years (35 year offices), and 25 years (POTUS)? That would target the experience without ruffling the feathers of those who think young people deserve rights they don't deserve.

18-24 year olds being fully enfranchised citizens (note: FULLY) capable of standing for elected office? We have that now?

What benefit does that provide? None. There is nothing an 18 year old can bring that a 25 year old cannot. You're meerely adding something, yet failing to add a benefit. In fact, due to the complete lack of experience among most people before the age of 25, you'd be adding a heavy negative.

In short, your asking that we put someone who just got their regular license to be incharge of driving a triple trailer semi truck. There's a reason that comercial licenses require driving experience, because simply 'knowing how to drive' isn;t enough to prepare the driver for all of the nuances and problems they will encounter. Same goes for politics. Simply knowing stuff is no preparation for actually making a bill that does its job while not busting the budget, whilst not steppoing on any toes, whilst being able to be passed. It takes life experience to learn that, and life experience is something 18-24 years old categorically have not have much of an opportunity to accumulate.

Is the line arbitrary? Yes. Does it represent a good line after which most people have accumulated a good amount of life experience, enough necessary to have an idea what is needed? Pretty much. It's no different that the strict age lines that come with voting or driving.

[Cynical-Charlotte]

At 5/25/13 03:39 PM, TheMason wrote: At 18 or 20...what do you really know that equips you to handle the responsibility of holding those offices?

I suppose this question could be answered if 18 year olds were allowed to hold office. Perhaps you are forgetting the part where you are not required to vote for someone you feel is inexperienced - unless I am misinterpreting the purpose of democracy, in which case 18 year olds should not be allowed to vote for the same reason.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/27/13 04:12 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: in which case 18 year olds should not be allowed to vote for the same reason.

18 year olds are only allowed to vote because of the draft, not because anyone ever thought they were competent enough.

[Cynical-Charlotte]

At 5/27/13 04:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/27/13 04:12 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: in which case 18 year olds should not be allowed to vote for the same reason.

18 year olds are only allowed to vote because of the draft, not because anyone ever thought they were competent enough.

That's exactly my point.

[TheMason]

At 5/27/13 04:12 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I suppose this question could be answered if 18 year olds were allowed to hold office.

Again...for the reasons I set forth above: at this stage of intellectual and emotional development the vast majority of 18-24 year olds are still in an immature state of narcissistic and naive idealism. It's social science! ;)

Perhaps you are forgetting the part where you are not required to vote for someone you feel is inexperienced - unless I am misinterpreting the purpose of democracy, in which case 18 year olds should not be allowed to vote for the same reason.

No...not forgetting it. Just remembering that Plato in The Republic held that democracy is one of the bad or tyrannical forms of government. See we are a representative republic, the Founders made it this way because they understood:
* Majorities often opress minorities.
* The passions of the people can often be enflamed to vote away their liberty.
* Democracy is chaos.

:)

[Ceratisa]

Aren't brains fully developed by age 25? Why in the world does an 18 year old need to hold a powerful public office. We've already seen REAL LIFE examples of incompetence because of age and inexperience in history.

[TheMason]

At 5/27/13 12:21 AM, Entice wrote: How? Campuses aren't bubbles that stop people from taking on responsibilities. There's quite a few people that begin working at 16 and have to find ways to get through college without their parents help. Saying that no college students take on "real-life" responsibilities is a huge generalization.

There's quite a few, yes. However, the vast majority of kids attending college ARE living in a bubble that shields them from responsibilities. I've been there, done that, and come back for more. And parental help is not all that much of an argument. I went back to school for a PhD without Mommy & Daddy's money. I also know a great many people who went to college whose parents are poor and can contribute zero to their education. Scholarships, student loans, and various grants allow students to defray the cost of living while they go to college.

But in the end, I'm not saying "no" college students take on real-life responsibilities. I know they exist.

* My parents went to school after getting married and having me...Dad worked his ass off to support the family. But he was in a minority.
* My ex-wife got her undergrad with no parental support. She got a scholarship, work-study, and student loans.
* When I went back to grad school...I went back to school with kids who lived off grants, scholarships, and loans without having to work.

See colleges have this philosophy of in loco parentis in which they assume responsibility for students living on campus or attending events on campus. Meal plans, dorms, on-campus apartments leave kids in a place where maybe they are paying for cable but do not need to worry about shelter, food, or utilities. This does insulate kids from living on their own. So again...it is a generalization but one based on fact and not exclusive of exceptions.

Now, where I think we would find a few exceptions are in small redneck towns.
Unlike many of the tech whiz kids...

Those are just stereotypes lol. I know a gay Indian guy that's putting himself through med school by working as a manager at a retail store. What would you do if I said that rednecks can't work based solely on my personal experiences?

Um...I'd say you missed the point? The point I was making was you have kids who create an app or website while still with their parents or living in an in loco parentis environment and suddenly they do not have to worry about money. On the other hand, you've got kids (mostly from the lower classes) who have been learning a trade from a young age and are prepared to go into business either without college...or right after since they have had the hands-on experience to go along with their book learnin'!

:)

NOTE: Also, by pointing out stereotypes...you miss the forest for the trees. I'm talking in trends...now in a world of about 7 billion people there are exceptions to these trends.

As for the rest of your post... economic success has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to govern. Running a business has nothing to do with politics or public policy. Given the choice between a political science major that understands the field and a small business owner with considerably less knowledge, I'd choose the former. That knowledge comes from real life, it can be used to make real life decisions.

I love your example for two reasons: first of all it's personally gratifying. Most of the time people have this opinion that political scientists who study government for a living...hold opinions that are of equal quality as their own. The second, is being a political scientist myself...I can say this argument holds no basis in reality.

See, business does have a lot of correlation with the ability to govern. You have to know how to manage people & resources, you have to know how to lead. See...a PhD in political science does not teach you to do that. Running a business on the other hand...does. Running a business also gives you insight into finances. I'll give you some examples:

* I was teaching a lesson on economics and I've got two kids who normally don't care about govt or history. They are both sons of mechanics and have ambitions of owning their own garages. They connected with the economics lessons very well...it was intuitive for them. They got the relationship between the Fed and banks lending/borrowing money. They understood municipal bonds, stocks, etc. Economic issues are a HUGE part of governing. In fact the most powerful parts of the elected government are the House and Senate finances committees. A business person would be far more qualified than I (and I've concentrated on political economy).

* I'm a political scientist, my dad is an accountant (actually worked in government finance). He and my mother now own their own school. He knows far more about the economy than I...and on the local level he understands how government works far more than I. My mom runs the school's day-to-day operations. She gets to deal with public policy every day. She has to deal with government regulators who make the laws legislators pass...work in the real world. Myself on the other hand...I watch these things from a macro-level. A political scientist makes generalities and observes trends. What we don't see happening...how those laws and how government works on a micro, day-to-day level.

So in conclusion:
* Running a business teaches a person how to run an organization...studying government does not.
* Much of running a business means you're dealing with government and public policy...it is something that effects you on a daily basis. To a political scientist ALL politicians are monkies to be studied and observed from afar and laws are just experiments that only occassionally effect us directly. (So the notion that running a business "has nothing to do with politics and public policy" is so wrong...it's kinda funny!)
* If you pick a political scientist with no real world experience running anything over a business person...you deserve what you get! ;)
* To dismiss experience as you do in your last sentence...wow! Laws are not something that exist in fantasy land that magically makes things better. They directly impact the daily life of those individuals who make the economy run. If you have a bunch of ideologues (no matter the ideology) making shit up in DC with little concern as to knowing how it will impact people...you're heading down the path to a highly disfunctional government and society. This is why experience matters with elected office.

[TheMason]

At 5/27/13 12:33 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Case in point: Joe the Plumber ran for a House seat in 2012. Would anyone honestly consider him more qualified for the House of Representatives than, say, a 23 year old PoliSci graduate?

And that's when I look at the write-ins!