Instead of running for political office, why not run for political interviewer?









Sure, it'd be great to change the world through elected office, but it's just not for me. But what about running for the position of being the person who gets to ask the candidates questions?

We elect our politicians, but we don't elect the people who ask our politicians why we should elect them (for the most part).

It seems that, in a democracy, the questions posed should represent the interests of the electorate. Furthermore, the questions should be put in a way that is sharp, to the point, and difficult to evade.

Instead, the press generally poses questions that serve the press's interests: garnering attention, boosting ratings and selling advertising. Maybe most Americans don't really want to hear sniping and mudslinging, maybe they actually want to hear about healthcare reform, environmental policy, criminal justice reform and all the other pressing needs. We just need a press core that will ask.

Do we have any candidates to stand for interviewer? I wonder how we would select such a person? They have to host a podcast? Submit a 5 minute video of interviewing an ornery child? My personal vote is Tyler Cowen, that guy really conducts an amazing interview.

And how would we select the question topics? It seems like a simple survey would do.

We could have interviewers at the local and state level as well as for federal office. There could be a kind of parallel feeder system, where interviewers at the local level run for positions at higher levels of interview-ship.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Better Way to Interpret "Screen Time"

When I first saw this study, I tried to develop ways to hide my phone from myself: " The Mere Presence of Your Smartphone Reduces Brain Power " But Lulie Tanett flipped this around on me. Study finds that people prefer to do other things with their time than complete boring tasks: https://t.co/i8EQmuDLcc — Lulie (@reasonisfun) July 16, 2019 Of course! Of course it's hard to do boring tasks with the option of something more interesting nearby. The lesson, according to Lulie, is that we should be focusing on not forcing ourselves to do boring stuff. As she articulates here , relying on self discipline to force oneself to complete boring tasks is a failure, not a virtue. It is a failure to recognize why the task is valuable, which makes it fun. To do boring stuff is to be confused. This informs the entire discussion about "screen time." We should stop thinking about screens as stealing our attention away from what matters, and instead think about sc...
Read more

Points on Popper - problems over definitions

Image
A recent conversation with my friend Michael illustrates the point: We had been talking about art and creativity and the like, and at some point he blurted out at me to "go and make some art." I challenged him on the definition of art by claiming that I do creative things all the time. Thus ensued a back and forth about definitions, what counts as artisinal versus functional, what theories of art are important. When Michael suggested we learn about Bauhaus to see if it can shed light on our discussion, I suddenly grasped the relevance of Karl Popper. Popper hated quibbling about definitions, claiming an inverse relationship between the amount of jargon in a field and the information content within it. Practitioners wind up endlessly debating semantics and take their eye off knowledge creation. For Popper, knowledge creation comes from finding and addressing problems. What is wrong about the world? What doesn't make sense? What two ideas or explanations contrad...
Read more

Why "No" is Good for Children

The word "no" has a bad reputation in parenting - Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner even recommends ways to avoid it . The charge is that the word can be used up 400 times per day, eventually causing children to overreact to it by flying into a tantrum, or otherwise ignore it altogether. But the Popperian style of parenting not only loosens restrictions on using the word, it sees "no" as a crucial word in children's development. To see why, we need to take a pretty large step back and consider the purpose of parenting.  For Popperians, the job of the parent is to help the child understand the world. By developing explanations for how the world works, including how the child's own mind and psychology works, the child becomes a healthy adult. Interestingly, this process doesn't stop in adulthood, because no explanation is ever known to be the final, best explanation. In fact, adulthood is an arbitrary designation that has more to do with cultural...
Read more