Why are most politicians in Western Democracies lawyers?

[Barnabas]

Why are most politicians in Western Democracies lawyers?

Do you think your country would be a better place if instead of lawyers most politicians were engineers,economists and non social scientists?

[giblets]

1. They're good at bull****ting and have lots of money to spend on campaigning
2. yes

[KrazyHorse]

1) Becoming a lawyer is fairly easy
2) Lawyers get a broader exposure to the concerns of more people than anybody in the list other than economists (this is not necessarily a good thing, just an observation)
3) To the extent that politicking is actually about writing laws that will survive the legal process, lawyers are the experts, not other people
4) Having the economists (serious, academic economists) run things by voting amongst themselves would lead to pretty good stuff without much downside. We'd get virtually instantaneous unilateral free trade, freer immigration, a dramatic decrease in some product market regulation (especially whatever wage&price controls are still around), probably a reduction in licensing requirements for professionals, and an end to most subsidies. We'd probably see a reduction of command&control methods like fuel economy standards for cars in favour of market-based methods like an increase in fuel taxes. Once that was done, they'd all sit around and bicker about monetary policy, optimal tax regimes, anticyclical government spending etc. and wouldn't change anything. They'd pick up the free lunches, and the rest would be down to ideology/schools of thought.
5) Having scientists and ESPECIALLY engineers in charge of things is a terrible idea

[germanos]

Because politicians primarily work in the legislative brand of government?

[Traianvs]

Like gribbler said, they're good at bull****ting. Most of what politicians say during debates has been researched or passed on to them by their staff. They are usually the scientists, economists or the like. If they know how to talk really well they might be able to pull it off, but I don't often see it, on the contrary.

Oh and economists are blinded by ideology more often than any other type of people. Wouldn't bet on them too much.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

most politicans are lawyers, but it would be better if most were professional actors.

[rah]

or professional wrestlers.

[MikeH]

1. They're good at bull****ting and have lots of money to spend on campaigning
2. yes

+

3. Good at lying

[OneFootInTheGrave]

or professional wrestlers.

it's the future

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, porn star and five-time ultimate smackdown wrestling champion!!!! A great man, a great american. He will serve up a can of whoop ass if you cross him. He will stomp your ass if you don't! JOIN THE CAMACHO 08 MOVEMENT! CAMACHO WILL SAVE AMERICA................**** YEA!!!

[Kidlicious]

1. They're good at bull****ting

I would have said they're as crooked as serpents but this is good enough. Close the thread.

[DanS]

In answer to the OP, nobody has ever had scientists running the show, so it's anybody's guess how good they would do.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I agree with KH, scientists and engineers are typically not good at running the show. Case and point Jimmy Carter.

[Dauphin]

In answer to the OP, nobody has ever had scientists running the show, so it's anybody's guess how good they would do.

Maggie was into the chemistry and, supposedly, invented Angel Delight (before moving into law).

[Az]

1) Becoming a lawyer is fairly easy
2) Lawyers get a broader exposure to the concerns of more people than anybody in the list other than economists (this is not necessarily a good thing, just an observation)
3) To the extent that politicking is actually about writing laws that will survive the legal process, lawyers are the experts, not other people
4) Having the economists (serious, academic economists) run things by voting amongst themselves would lead to pretty good stuff without much downside. We'd get virtually instantaneous unilateral free trade, freer immigration, a dramatic decrease in some product market regulation (especially whatever wage&price controls are still around), probably a reduction in licensing requirements for professionals, and an end to most subsidies. We'd probably see a reduction of command&control methods like fuel economy standards for cars in favour of market-based methods like an increase in fuel taxes. Once that was done, they'd all sit around and bicker about monetary policy, optimal tax regimes, anticyclical government spending etc. and wouldn't change anything. They'd pick up the free lunches, and the rest would be down to ideology/schools of thought.
5) Having scientists and ESPECIALLY engineers in charge of things is a terrible idea

a) Having economists run the show is great.
b) Having scientists run the show is terrible.

thus:
economics is not a science.


I tend to disagree about the economists, though I believe they are slightly better than scientists.

...hmm... maybe some sort of mixup of industrial engineers and behaviorial economists... and yeah, **** the lawyers.

[Hauldren Collider]

Lawyers = legal experts. Congressmen = legal writers. This is the obvious connection, folks, not whatever dumb perception you have in your mind of lawyers as reptiles.