Would it be better they work for a lobbying firm first?
I know a couple ladies my wife clerked with who, because they are passionate about changing policy, went nearly directly from law school into being aides for senators (after an 18 month stop clerking for judges). They also worked the typical retail/service industry jobs and interned at organizations they are passionate about while in school. Why do you think that is bad? What is your preferred route into policy and politics?
Maybe they have some (adult) experience in the same world the people they claim to represent have. Have a record of successful leadership that shows the ability to overcome and solve problems. Overcoming a college class does not count.
As an analogy, at 24 you were working on civil projects in some specified task - learning ins and outs of code for the area you worked, adding value to your firm doing some humdrum task of computations or info gathering higher ups didn’t want to do, site visitations to see realization of the proposed work, meeting with your team, client, and mgmt to ensure all on same page.
In other words, learning the ropes beyond a textbook and compiling experience you would need to move into project mgmt or higher - like corporate strategy.
Not knocking education or energy that youth brings. But lack of experience leaves you not knowing what you don’t know.
Would working for a decade as an aide, or strategist, or on campaigns not count as gaining requisite experience? I think working in the policy/political arena would make you knowledgeable on a MUCH broader range of topics (and also more in depth) than if you came from a background where your focus was just on your singular industry.
Not to mention that experience working service/retail gives you knowledge and experience applicable to 30 million americans who work those jobs as well.
To me, it sounds more like an issue with age and experience in general. Not with what industries/sectors a person has worked in.
As a career politician, or as a creative force and real world problem solver?
I would say having a broader education, a law degree does not qualify in that regard, would make you more knowledgeable on a broader range of topics.
And if you had a varied work experience, a broader work and life experience (not just dealing with teens in the mall or hipsters overpaying for coffee), I would say it’s better than the singular work experience of working for a politician learning how to keep your head above the waters of the swamp. Or learning how to market policies that benefit the few to the many.
With age, comes experience. Some experience is more valuable than others.
Are you saying those are mutually exclusive? I see plenty of crossover between the two.
What do you mean by a broader education? I think a law degree is hugely beneficial as you learn how the systems of our government work, how to argue policies, how to write policies, and all the different precedents that have been set. Hence, why so many in politics have law degrees. As an environmentally minded person myself, I’d much rather have an environmental lawyer representing me as opposed to a 35yr old rising star in the extraction industry, for example. Even if the rising star could claim a broader experience base.
What kind of broad experience would you be looking for in an individual under the age of 35?
Yes. Knowing things, no. Lawyers argue to win cases, not to find the truth.
Come up with, or write?
These days? I would expect to find none.
My grandfather fought in WW2, went to Harvard, became a professor and had a family, all before the age of 30. He later opened his own business.
The lawyers I know investigate before bringing a case to court. It is unethical to argue something you know to be false, and you’d be surprised how seriously most lawyers take their ethics (certainly not all). They also do either write policy, guide policy, or review and edit policy. Environmental, and social policy are what I am thinking of specifically, but it seems to be standard practice for ALL policy to be reviewed and edited by attorneys.
It does seem tough to gain “broad and in depth” experience before the age of 35. But a younger person would seem to be more intouch with issues important to young people… Doesn’t that count for something?
That’s not what I said. Creating a persuasive argument is not the same as trying to get to the truth. You might not lie, but you will choose your facts accordingly. And if lawyers cared about the truth, none would become politicians.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child…
You seem to only be thinking of the bad attorneys (insert joke here). YMMV. Bad apples in all fields…etc.
Do you think your views on this general topic apply to local govt, as well? Or do these hard/fast generalizations become more applicable the higher up in govt you go?
Look at it this way. When we were 18, we knew what we knew. When we were 25 we knew what we knew. Maybe we thought we were smart. Maybe we were smart, or rather, smarter than our peers. Then, you get older and look back and say, “I was an idiot.” Your typical 25 year old has been living on his own for what? A couple of years, maybe. What responsibilities does he have? Who depends upon him for their very existence?
And something else to consider is the lack of understanding of reality. You take all of those young, idealistic, woke young people who care so much about the world that they have dedicated their lives to imposing their beliefs upon others because what does anyone else know? Ask them who makes their clothes, mobile phones and produces the coffee that they are willing to spend half their paycheck on. They are full of shit but just haven’t learned that yet. Lebron James speaks for the oppressed unless they are Chinese. Then he betrays his American privilege. In short, I don’t want anyone running things who is too ignorant to realize they are part of the problem they claim to be fighting.
Young folks are the ones who drive social, cultural and technological change. There are many advantages to being younger, just as there are many advantages for being older. It’s why a good mix to balance is the way to go IMO.
That’s debatable.
And there’s many a graveyard that could attest to the merits of those changes.
True but the question will always be “do enough voters see it?” And the answer to that will likely be no.
Interesting is one word for it, but not the word I’d choose lol. Watching history made like this is like watching a train wreck in slow motion on repeat.
Perhaps. It’s always hard to judge this far out anyway.
Well, it is interesting, it’s just not comfortable to watch. I know I’m not going to be dancing on the streets if the American era gives way to the Chicom era.
You’re not wrong. I’m afraid my pessimism is getting the better of me here. I think 2022 is going to be another Trump driven midterm for the GOP, regardless of what happens in 2024. I hope I am mistaken however.
Seems like the prepping for Kamala has begun. Biden can’t even get through a 5 minute speech and I’m not sure he’s even held a press conference in weeks.
Well, I hope you’re wrong
How many more N-bombs will they let Joe Biden drop before someone in the news has to report on it? How many empty fields will he wave to? How many times will he say the quiet parts out loud? The live clips are just sad. Anyone who has worked in hospice care or retirement homes can see the decline in plain sight, and that’s knowing full well that dramatic and unprecedented measures are being taken to shield this from the public.
So, how will we end up with an open socialist who was dead-last in the Democratic primary as President?
Through the cleanest, most transparently ethical series of elections and last-minute, completely necessary election changes in the history of Western Civilization, that’s how! There’s so little to dispute about this election that you’ll get banned from all major social media for even bringing it up.
The next question is, of course, how do we keep an open socialist who was dead-last in the Democratic primary as president?
The Democrats are on it. HR 1 just passed the house.