I actually agree with "the founders" that "the people" (ie: the masses) can't be trusted to have the required intellect and / or intel to cast an informed vote. And we can confirm this quite easily when we just go out in the streets around election day, and ask people who they voted for and why. Their "why" oftenly are facepalming moments.
Even the idea that "anyone" can be a candidate and get voted into office, is something that resonates to me as a stupid thing to do. It means that seriously underqualified people can get elected. What good does that do?
It does happen from time to time, where someone who is unqualified makes it to public office. But then, with elected officials, people are also looking at character and what some might refer to as "leadership quality," which can be a bit more nebulous and vague. The "leader" isn't necessarily the smartest person in the room, and sometimes, having the smartest person in charge isn't always the ideal situation. But as with anything, the results can vary.
The idea that "anyone" can be elected is more a philosophical position, declaring no one has to be born "into the right family" or be of "noble birth" in order to succeed in America. The Founders rejected monachism and the kind of mentality it fostered. It implies that a position should be earned based solely on merit, not on birthright.
The numerous stories of people going from rags to riches are a common trope in Americana, and a propagandistic tool of the capitalist system. The idea that "anyone" can be a success is an integral part of the ideology, strongly implying that if anyone doesn't reach that level, it's due to their own personal failings as an individual. It's not due to the system or any level of oppression (as the argument usually goes). It's the idea that the poor are poor because they're lazy, while the rich are rich because they're diligent and hard-working. This idea is a sacred cow in the American political consciousness, and it's been embraced by liberals and conservatives alike.
I don't have the answers though, but I do feel like some serious reflecting and reforming is required of the entire democratic process.
I like to compare it with how a corporation is run. If a business needs a new CEO, or a new financial officer or what-have-you... Not every "average joe" can get that job. You need proper qualifications. Neither does "every average Joe" get a vote. You need proper qualifications.
Is that really true, though? Some companies might be perceived as having nepotism, favoritism, "good ol' boy" networks, etc. It's often said "it's not
what you know, it's
who you know." That may seem like sour grapes, but then one has to consider CEOs like that of Sears, who made a humongous salary yet drove the company into ruin. A lot of incompetent people somehow make it to the top spot, and one has to wonder just how that can happen, if they're actually screening people, vetting people, and presumably hiring the most qualified person.
Then there are those who might be self-taught and are quite knowledgeable, but they may not have the qualifications "on paper," as it were. Bill Gates dropped out of college. Even many presidents never went to or finished college.
Why would positions for running a COUNTRY be any different? Eventhough democracy has served us well, compared to all other systems that have been tried till now, I think the way it is implemented, is actually kind of patently insane in a way...
I don't think anyone has been able to come up with a completely foolproof political system. Our system probably might have worked better if not for those who weren't content with us being a humble little democratic-republic. They wanted to make America into a global empire and a superpower, and that's where we really went wrong. Maybe they felt it was necessary at the time of the World Wars and the perceived threat of international Communism, which they were afraid could topple the capitalist/imperialist world order which had been established in the previous century.
But it was that shift in our national direction which created the so-called "Imperial Presidency" and elevated our national leader to that of "leader of the free world."
Democracy can work at the lower levels of society, and in smaller ponds. But sometimes I wonder if America has gotten too big for democracy. We're already a quasi-"empire" of sorts, and a lot of things our government does, the general public really has no knowledge of. A lot of things are kept secret, particularly in matters of Defense and the intelligence community. Our law enforcement agencies are much larger and more powerful than they were in our Founders' time. We'd like to think that we're still a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," but the people aren't really given enough information to able to truly confirm that.
