Who is the middle ground?
Dec. 23rd, 2005 10:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jducoeurHere's a question that struck me this morning. When a country is as ideologically riven as the US is today, a common approach is to reject both sides, and instead bring in "technocrats". That's a somewhat loose term, but it generally means a government that is firmly non-ideological in its outlook (by whatever the prevailing definition of "ideological" is), and is instead focused on the nuts and bolts of making things work. When it works well, it's usually meritocratic, and often draws from all parts of the political spectrum, albeit mainly the less extreme members of the various factions.
It's sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees, and I'm really not sure who the technocrats would be if this were to happen in the US today. The extremists on both sides tend to get the publicity. But there's much to be said for the technocrat approach -- indeed, one can argue that the Clinton administration was largely technocratic in its outlook, and for all its bumps was largely successful.
So who would the technocrats be today? Looking at both sides of the political aisle (and possibly the overlooked independents that reject both), who do you think are the people who would do well in a non-ideological government today?
It's sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees, and I'm really not sure who the technocrats would be if this were to happen in the US today. The extremists on both sides tend to get the publicity. But there's much to be said for the technocrat approach -- indeed, one can argue that the Clinton administration was largely technocratic in its outlook, and for all its bumps was largely successful.
So who would the technocrats be today? Looking at both sides of the political aisle (and possibly the overlooked independents that reject both), who do you think are the people who would do well in a non-ideological government today?