Quote Originally Posted by Ironhorse View Post
As I listened to yet another absurd prescription for "solving" the Iraq War, wedged between radio programs on our pathetic medical care system and some election prognositications on how the flex of executive privilege muscle will play, it all distilled down to the subject line for me.

Can we get the politics out of governing?

Is it possible?

I'm sure there's a body of thought and debate out there. I'm not tapped into it. Comments anywhere from comparative foreign and historical government lessons, to "that's stupid" by definition.
Ironhorse,
it is relatively easy to get politics out of governing and it is not novelty. Now, whom or which kind of leaders are you suggesting instead?

Well, when this happens it usually takes the form of synarchism and the official ruling class gets made up of stupid and unqualified persons who spend their time making purposeless speeches on the TV. People get disenchanted and distrustful toward those who are officially in power and about politics and elections in general. An headless authoritarian regime takes place and everywhere in officialdom, as in private business, no one seems to be truly in command; for, no one truly looks for responsibilities but for positions that offer the best pay check, perks and special privileges…

Historically, Claude Henry de Saint Simon, the father of a political doctrine first called “Saint simonism” before it was definitively called “Socialism,” was the first to suggest this way of governing.
He said that the future modern world ought to be governed by a secret council of 27 “wise men” picked up in the pool of the best scientists on earth.

Hmmm, not that attractive, in my own opinion.

Have you ever read 1984, by George Orwell, coincidentally?

Here is a definition of synarchism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synarchy

Here you can know more about Saint Simon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_...de_Saint-Simon