Only rich folks go to Congress

[politicus]

US federal politicians are almost always well off, Senators generally rich by most standards. Is it  problem that its so hard for a person with a middle class/working class economy to get elected to Congress? Let alone run for President.

What if anything should be done to change this?

[politicus]

This thread isn't going well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That won't happen anytime soon.

No, but that was not what I was asking about.

For the record, while I probably should find some stats for this, the US Congress is more elitist in its composition than almost all other Western Parliaments.

Cant a craftsman, union leader, nurse, farmer, social worker or public administrator be accomplished and intelligent? Some of you seem to equal intelligence to financial success.

[politicus]

Too complex, then, for a sports reporter (Palin) or a B-movie actor (Reagan), whose entire job consists of being able to read cue cards that someone else wrote for them.

Yes, and that's why Reagan is a hero on the right. People who defy the odds, overcome dissent from the establishment, and acquit themselves on the job should be hailed as heroes. However, no one should leap to the conclusion that electing under-qualified representatives is a preferable brand of populism.

If a representative is not strong enough to swim with sharks, he/she will end up as a pawn of the establishment.

The problem is that you consider people who have knowledge from different areas of life than the ones traditionally preferred to be less qualified as representatives of their constituency. I would disagree with this. Basically its a matter of what skills and qualifications you consider relevant for being a representative.

Perhaps you should clarify what qualifications you think a Congressman should have? Is the US preference for electing people with a law degree a good thing?

[politicus]

Yes it's the way things have always been since the dawn of time and has nothing to do with America or any kind of right-wing ideology.

There are significant differences between countries when it comes to choosing representatives to Parliament and the US has a very unequal recruiting pattern, so you are clearly wrong on the first part. There is also a Development towards more socially equal representation in most countries up to around 1980 and then a return to more elite oriented recruiting patterns in many countries. Things don't just stay the same since "the dawn of times".

[politicus]

I don't think it's strange that professions with higher qualifications would be overrepresented in a parliament.

The interesting question, to me, would rather be class background. Can you come from a working class family, become a lawyer/CEO/whatever and then have a career?

There is always an overrepresentation of academics (especially people with a social science/law background) in parliaments, but at some point this overrepresentation becomes too extreme.

Successful people with working class background does not necessarily show solidarity with workers. Some of the most anti-labour CEO's have a working class background. The same goes for pols and top civil servants.

[politicus]

I don't think it's strange that professions with higher qualifications would be overrepresented in a parliament.

The interesting question, to me, would rather be class background. Can you come from a working class family, become a lawyer/CEO/whatever and then have a career?

Agreed, that's a much more interesting question. I would love to see some studies on that (would be fascinating to see how various Western countries compare).

Why?

Anyway, we have two variables here: income/wealth and education, which are not necessarily overlapping. The original question was about wealth as a (usual) requirement for a political career in the US, not educational background.

Secondly the general question about social mobility, that Gustav raised (becoming a CEO, lawyer etc.), is not necessarily related to access to parliament. By broadening the topic to general social mobility you get a much more blurred and unfocused discussion (which is also outside of the purpose of this thread).

If you guys wanna discuss social mobility in general you should create a separate thread for that.

[politicus]

I don't think it's strange that professions with higher qualifications would be overrepresented in a parliament.

The interesting question, to me, would rather be class background. Can you come from a working class family, become a lawyer/CEO/whatever and then have a career?

Agreed, that's a much more interesting question. I would love to see some studies on that (would be fascinating to see how various Western countries compare).

Why?

Anyway, we have two variables here: income/wealth and education, which are not necessarily overlapping. The original question was about wealth as a (usual) requirement for a political career in the US, not educational background.

Secondly the general question about social mobility, that Gustav raised (becoming a CEO, lawyer etc.), is not necessarily related to access to parliament. By broadening the topic to general social mobility you get a much more blurred and unfocused discussion (which is also outside of the purpose of this thread).

If you guys wanna discuss social mobility in general you should create a separate thread for that.

Um, ok. But you realize that it's hard to imagine a system in which say a homeless crack addict would run a successful political campaign? That's an extreme example, but someone who has no resources, social or economic nor experience in say leading people or managing anything would be disadvantaged in the realm of politics. That is hardly strange. And I believe this tends to be true in most countries. The difference in Scandinavia is rather that we have more professional politicians who haven't had a private sector job since they were 14 or something.

Any reason why you can't conduct a serious debate? Your tone is very condescending (such as using absurd examples) and you are using strawman arguments. If you are going to continue I suggest you quote the things you disagree with and why, so we at least have some common ground.

Leadership and policy making experience can be obtained in a wide range of sectors. Business experience is generally not the best background for successful political leadership  and people with business background will have a particular outlook that is generally pro-elite/vested interests no matter their social background.

Scandinavia has produced a number of excellent political leaders with a non-academic background in trade unions and farmer organizations, your current PM Stefan Løfven is a recent example.