Technocracy

A technocracy is a hypothetical form of governance where the experts of particular fields rule those fields. This idea opposes a system in which politicians and businessmen, most of whom seek higher approval ratings or bigger profits without necessarily being thoroughly knowledgeable in some (or any) areas, get to make the decisions. This form of rule would more or less decentralize the daily activities of Congress (and Wall Street) and concentrate them more to the experts. So the economists would have their leaders, the engineers theirs, and the scientists theirs. They would probably all have to report to a central figure (the president).

The technocratic movement made big waves at the beginning of FDR's presidency in 1933, when a quarter of the nation was unemployed, but had died out by the end of the decade.

I guess I would consider myself a technocrat. I've certainly believed that a small group of elites should help form the social agenda -- I call them the intelligentsia. As an example, I'll take the issue of climate change and green energy. The scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers and won a Nobel Prize (Secretary of Energy Steven Chu) would explain what it is we're facing; the economists who have won a Nobel and write the most popular and most intelligent op-ed pieces in The New York Times (of course, Paul Krugman) would calculate how many new jobs we need to gain back a vibrant economy; and the engineers would create the best equipment for our infrastructure. And all this would be approved by a smart president.

But therein lies the problem. A president would still look at his or her approval ratings and political capital. And if we don't have a leader at the top, there would be no one to cull the ideas and suggestions of all the members of the fields in order to devise a plan. That's why I think this whole thing is for idealists -- it's something to ponder but not to lose any sleep over.

But you could also make the argument that once a country sees the good reaped from the social policies of the technocrats, the people will continue voting for the president in power. That's what happened in the case of FDR, who with the elites of certain professions helped shape the New Deal. FDR went on to get elected and re-elected four times. A lot of that went to dust, however, as Ronald Reagan took the reins and anti-intellectualism started to creep into the public discourse.

Now you have senior citizens shouting at their government leaders to get their government hands off their Medicare. Then you have other idiots who sincerely believe that the only thing the federal government should do is to protect us from foreign enemies and deliver our mail. I think there exists another class of elites -- the ones who consciously manipulate the public by proclaiming that government can do almost no good. Hence, the general population isn't as attracted to intelligent conversations that deal more with objective truth as much as they are to a bloviating has-been on a once-important weekly news show. Those elites are damn good. I call them the ones with conscious intent.

But has it always been like this? Have we always fell back on on our amygdala instead of disciplining ourselves to use our prefrontal cortex? Would the desire for something like a technocracy right now lead us right back to where we currently are, simply because there is an equal (lots of times stronger) and opposite force on the other side, and also because most members of the dabble-dabble (my made-up term for the little man, the group that includes me, though I hope I'm not like many of them) just don't feel like picking up an intellectually honest and valid book?

That's it for my free association rant. That's a lot for one concept.