Qualified vs Electable

[Deny and Shred]

3. Interesting differentiation

By qualified, I guess I mean an attempt to place the 'Best and Brightest' in the appropriate government jobs, not corporate jobs. Thinking people, not position holders who take marching orders.

The only sanctioned Government personnel allowed to give reports, press conferences, etc are those who hold a position. Whoever holds the position gets the final word over any righteous underling. Shouldn't we expect federal position holders to do their job? I've experienced a lifetime of them not doing that, so I am with you.

How do we turn these into jobs that have substance? Retrograde yes, it hasn't been tried in a long time and might be deleterious to recent 'progress', but introducing substance to our collective decision-makers ought not be inappropriate. Its more like a longtime coming.

Once upon a time, in America, before airplanes, cameras, TV, talk shows, etc., people could only consider the issues, and voted accordingly. Why can't todays electorate select officials who are capable of 'productive work?'