Why are most politicians in Western Democracies lawyers?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The increasing trend is for leading politicians to study politics/history/philosophy.

Which makes lawyers suddenly look a lot more attractive.

[GePap]

The law writing aspect of legislating is, as has been said, the key connection, and also self-perpetuating: a lot of elected officials were first staff members to previous elected officials, either as counsels, or they were staffers surrounded by lawyers and eventually decided to study law themselves.

I also have zero faith in KH's economist "technocracy," though it would likely end with the violent deaths of said economist, so it might have a plus side. I do agree that engineers or people who think like engineers make relatively poor politicians.

[KrazyHorse]

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

Scientists and engineers may be the smartest and most rational easily defined group in society. However, their rationality and experience dealing with the natural world, where they are the only conscious agent, tends to lead to a belief that government can impose better outcomes from above than will arise endogenously from below.

There are things in this world which are the result of human action, but not human intention. This is the single most important thing to remember when you are part of the process which crafts the rules we live by.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

Industrial engineers are the WORST IMAGINABLE group to allow into political power.

Modern economies are NOT one big factory. Trying to make them behave like they are is precisely what distinguishes command&control economies from market economies, and is precisely what causes command&control economies to dramatically underperform market economies.

As far as behavioral economists, they are the first step along the slippery slope of deciding that government knows better than individuals what is good for the individuals. Many or most of their current suggestions are relatively benign, but their influence is certainly something to be concerned about, in my opinion.

[giblets]

China seems to be doing fine with engineers in charge...

[KrazyHorse]

I also have zero faith in KH's economist "technocracy,"

That's because you have a ridiculous predilection for government intervention and the restriction of consumer choice.

[KrazyHorse]

China seems to be doing fine with engineers in charge...

a) Do you really believe that the quality of governance in China is higher than that in most developed nations?
b) China's not "doing fine". They are POOR, POOR, POOR. To the extent that they are getting rapidly less poor, they are simply scrapping the things that kept them so poor for so long, namely government command of economic arrangements. That is a great and wonderful achievement, but it says nothing about how well they would do in a situation in which they were not simply picking the lowest hanging fruit.

[giblets]

a) Do you really believe that the quality of governance in China is higher than that in most developed nations?
b) China's not "doing fine". They are POOR, POOR, POOR. To the extent that they are getting rapidly less poor, they are simply scrapping the things that kept them so poor for so long, namely government command of economic arrangements. That is a great and wonderful achievement, but it says nothing about how well they would do in a situation in which they were not simply picking the lowest hanging fruit.

a) I don't know how to make such a comparison. Compared to other developing nations China seems to be doing well.
b) China seems to be an example of engineers in power who realize the government is exerting too much control. So I don't see how engineers are unable to recognize that people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, rule by economists differs from technocracy in a very fundamental way; the classic technocracy of scientists and engineers attempts to design detailed solutions to the "problems" they see. To use an example I've already referenced, a technocratic response to global warming would be to mandate the use of specific design standards for automobiles, based on the presumption that the technocrats know better than everybody else:

a) how much of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions should come from automobiles
b) to some extent, how best to accomplish that

An economist's response would be to allow maximal flexibility in reducing greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide (through the pricing of emissions).

Technocrats design solutions. Economists design environments where other people's genius will find solutions.

[Al B. Sure!]

Besides the obvious reasons stated so far, I'd also like to mention that lawyers are specifically talented in debates which is very important for a politician, both to get elected and to get things done on the congressional floor.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, for an overview of economist positions (PhD-holding members of the American Economic Association):

http://econjwatch.org/file_download/9/ejw_derc_sep09_whaples.pdf

[DanS]

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? I think that our politicians more or less listen to what the economists have to say. And the economists aren't a monolithic block. They can be as heavy-handed and supercilious as the engineers. And they probably are about as courageous as our current politicians.

[KrazyHorse]

a) I don't know how to make such a comparison. Compared to other developing nations China seems to be doing well.
b) China seems to be an example of engineers in power who realize the government is exerting too much control. So I don't see how engineers are unable to recognize that people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves

a) Other developing nations are often run by military strongmen; I agree that a warlord is probably a worse choice than an engineer to run a country
b) While this is true, and is a very good point, I wonder whether or not this is simply a case of moving power from an even more control-oriented group (political philosophers of the Marxist tradition)...

[Al B. Sure!]

a) Other developing nations are often run by military strongmen; I agree that a warlord is probably a worse choice than an engineer to run a country

What about Pinochet?

[KrazyHorse]

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? I think that our politicians more or less listen to what the economists have to say. And the economists aren't a monolithic block. They can be as heavy-handed and supercilious as the engineers. And they probably are about as courageous as our current politicians.

I've already listed the issues on which current policy diverges from the great bulk of informed opinion. And I agree that economists are not a monolithic block. That's why I'd poll them on given policies and reject the policy if more than 40% of them disagreed with it. As far as I can tell, this would lead to pretty solid outcomes...