Re: A Relatively Modest Proposal

My first question is, do we really want leaders who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty?  Aside from the myriad logistical problems – which I won’t explore here – I can think of one significant issue that would give me pause: competency.  The concept of the citizen-statesman might work well in theory and, to some demonstrable effect, on a small scale, but I’m not sure if it would be in our best interests  nationally.  This is not to say that our current paradigm of career politicians is necessarily better.  But I don’t think Joe the Plumber is the person I want stewarding the commons.  We’ve had (and still do e.g., Sarah Palin) people who want the public to believe that a welder or soccer mom should be running the nation.  I couldn’t disagree more.  Leaders should be exceptional.  The basic problem with our electoral system (well, there are many problems, actually) is that the best thinkers we have are also the last people who want the job.  I understand the concept of tapping into those people via a lottery system such as you have described, but, being the most educated and intelligent among us, they would also be the most likely to avoid it.  Your analogy of jury duty is spot on.  Those positions currently attract lawyers and business people and I don’t imagine that would change much.  We would still lack educators, scientists, writers, philosophers and artists.

I can remember being taught in school that the framers of the government desired to create a system manned by citizen-statesmen.  But I’m not sure that’s really accurate.  First, they didn’t create a true democracy.  They created a Republic.  Second, the original process of selection was left largely in the hands of the elite.  Senators have not always been elected by popular vote (they used to be selected by State legislators).  The positions of President and Vice President are filled by a rather shadowy quorum of individuals called the Electoral College.  And voting rights, in general, were given only to white, male property owners.  Honestly, this country was founded by rich, white, slave-owing men who didn’t want to pay their taxes.  The only true democracy we have in this country (if it exists at all) exists at the local level.  And it is there where we can look for some practical demonstration of this idea.

Any form of lottery system employed to fill positions of authority in government would have to come with strict requirements of competency, no different than any other job.  No business owner in their right mind would hire someone who was not qualified for the position.  Yet, we do this all the time in politics, particularly at the local level and increasingly, at the national level as well.  Consequently, we get wholly unqualified and incompetent commissions and regulatory boards like the Texas Board of Education who want children to think creationism is a science.

Personally, I would be much more inclined to consider restrictions on campaign spending (including time expenditures like they do in Great Britain) and possibly some basic qualifiers such as a degree from an accredited institution and/or military experience.

I think much of the anxiety and frustration with politics in America comes from the fact that it has become a self-sustaining institution bent on its own survival.  People across all economic and social spectrums feel they’re not being adequately represented because, in truth, they’re not.  The institution represents itself.  Clearly, political parties are self-absorbed organisms focused almost exclusively on their own care and feeding, entrenched bureaucrats (necessary to the ongoing maintenance and function of government processes, I’ll admit) are concerned with their own survival, and corporations (both non and for-profit) who exist only by the good graces of favorable legislation are focused entirely on their own bottom lines and thus, make bedfellows of politicians and government contract managers.

Any lottery system made in the image of a jury selection process would not eliminate graft or hubris nor would it sever or moderate the connection between those who broker power in the halls of congress and those who wield it in the board room or chapel.  Those who seek power, influence and riches would continue to seek it through whatever means was available to them.