Expertise in politics

"You don't need to be a professor of economics to be a Treasury minister" says Alan Johnson. I agree. Expertise has no place in politics.
I say this not because I’m some pompous prat who thinks “judgment” matters, but for three reasons.
1. Politics - at least in opposition - is not about getting the right policy, but about getting the right position. Expertise can be positively harmful here.
For example, if Osborne’s cuts do lead to a “double dip”, Labour will win votes merely by having warned that he was cutting too fast; full-blown Ballsian opposition to the cuts probably won’t get any more votes, even though it would be proved to be the more correct position. Hotelling’s law applies here.
2. What matters in a politician is that he “connects” with the public. And here again, expertise is a handicap. It marks one out as a pointy-headed intellectual. Whilst the public are happy to be ruled by people much richer than them, they don’t want to be ruled by those much smarter.
It’s generally agreed that, in this context, Johnson is better than Balls. As Leigh says:

Alan Johnson's real job, in fact, is simply to make George Osborne look young, inexperienced and flustered

3. Politics is not about economics tutorials. Political journalists can’t or won’t understand anything more than a soundbite, so giving them a lengthy lecture about economics makes as much sense as reciting poetry to a pig. As someone once said, in politics, if you have to explain you’ve lost the debate.
Instead, the job of shadow chancellor is to come up with what Tanweer Ali calls “simple frames” - easily-understood narratives and soundbites. And as Paul says, Johnson might be better at doing this than Balls precisely because he is not trapped by any knowledge.
These points do not apply merely to Johnson. As Jonathan says, Miliband has applied the no-expertise principle quite widely: Yvette Cooper has no background in foreign affairs and Balls little interest so far in home affairs.
There is, however, a cost here. Excluding expertise from politics has a conservative bias, because radical critiques of hierarchical capitalism require in-depth understanding, and cannot be reduced to mere slogans (they often are, but those slogans don't work).
But then, the function of managerialist politics is precisely to uphold the existing order.

Comments

[mark]

I think if politicians understood the scientific method they would make much better decisions in a huge range of topics, from climate change and energy policy to recreational drugs
If more policies were properly backed up by decent science and randomised controlled trials rather than dogma, conjecture and anecdotes we would be in a much better position
The ceasefire project (evidence based violence disruption) being an excellent example
http://vimeo.com/11841675

[Phil]

"radical critiques of hierarchical capitalism require in-depth understanding"

True, but that would only be grounds for criticising Miliband in a different world than this one. I don't think Ed Balls's best friend would say that he would have brought a radical critique of hierarchical capitalism to the job.

[Luis Enrique]

"radical critiques of hierarchical capitalism require in-depth understanding"

A touch of question begging there. What makes you so sure a superior intellect wouldn't see those radical critiques to be deluded and naive?

[Kate Belgrave]

So cynical, and cynically accurate, that my watery old eyes are watering.

"...But then, the function of managerialist politics is precisely to uphold the existing order..."

Exactly, and that is why we ground-gubbers continue to question existing political structures, no matter how often we're told that Labour's are somehow 'better.'

[Churm Rincewind]

"Political journalists can’t or won’t understand anything more than a soundbite."

You do yourself an injustice.

[Mark Fox]

I agree, however there is a derivative within this thought that is missing in my opinion. The TV media does not fully understand nor convey any true perspective. Its hard to do when the average attention span of the American adult is twenty minutes. You combine this with phone calls, kids, commercial breaks. There is also the situation of the news coming from so many different views that it is extremely confusing to adults. However, pull up Charlie Rose October 12th, Timothy Geithner interview. He goes through and explains in full detail exactly what happened and is happening in the economy. However, the average American adult's attention span is 20 minutes and well its 60 minutes long and on PBS. It's an education problem within the audience to receive the message that also must be considered.

[Uplimemaype]

quello che stavo cercando, grazie

[Chanel Bags]

So, as usual, we answered our multiple choice question, were given our clue sheets, and were off. We got the clues to Scott and Julie and Bill, our support team.