Only rich folks go to Congress

[AggregateDemand]

In general, societies want to be represented by accomplished intelligent individuals. Congress will hopefully always be stocked with accomplished individuals. The difficult part is finding people who put the country before themselves.

[AggregateDemand]

Your party in particular seems to disagree.

Have you ever heard any American politician make intelligent remarks during a campaign? It's rare. The complexities of governing are so far removed from the interests of the average 90 IQ voter that it would be pointless to campaign on sound policy.

However, the parties tend to choose accomplished, intelligent people to say dumb things during their Senate campaigns. The House is a different story. Too many districts. Too many representatives. It's basically a free-for-all, and they'd rather have a few savvy people whipping the dumbs into compliance. Both parties employ legions of idiots to hold territory in the House.

[AggregateDemand]

A stupid republican is probably not the best person to comment of the intelligence of Republicans.

To be fair, you think single-payer in the US is thwarted by a band of Congressional Republicans who could barely muster a filibuster. Perhaps someday, you will realize that the existing healthcare bureaucracy has $1T in its war chest, and it has no intention of spreading the benefits around.

[AggregateDemand]

Cant a craftsman, union leader, nurse, farmer, social worker or public administrator be accomplished and intelligent? Some of you seem to equal intelligence to financial success.

No. The US is too complex and power in the Western Hemisphere is too centralized to have a pipe-fitter in the federal chambers of government. The welders, union leaders, farmers, teachers, nurses, soldiers, athletes, bus drivers, etc can all run for state office, where they are only responsible for a few million people.

[AggregateDemand]

You truly are a disgusting person.

And you dream of a world where AR-15-weilding rednecks and theologians are over 50% of Congress. Grow up. Sooner rather than later.

[AggregateDemand]

Too complex, then, for a sports reporter (Palin) or a B-movie actor (Reagan), whose entire job consists of being able to read cue cards that someone else wrote for them.

Yes, and that's why Reagan is a hero on the right. People who defy the odds, overcome dissent from the establishment, and acquit themselves on the job should be hailed as heroes. However, no one should leap to the conclusion that electing under-qualified representatives is a preferable brand of populism.

If a representative is not strong enough to swim with sharks, he/she will end up as a pawn of the establishment.

[AggregateDemand]

The problem is that you consider people who have knowledge from different areas of life than the ones traditionally preferred to be less qualified as representatives of their constituency. I would disagree with this. Basically its a matter of what skills and qualifications you consider relevant for being a representative.

Perhaps you should clarify what qualifications you think a Congressman should have? Is the US preference for electing people with a law degree a good thing?

The US Federal Government isn't responsible for much. It writes laws (lawyers), manipulates macroeconomic policy levers, currency, and pensions (economists), builds infrastructure (engineers), and provides insurance and healthcare to the elderly/veterans (doctors). Since Congress also controls the military and military spending, an argument could be made for more high-ranking military officials in Congress, but that could unintentionally recreate the military-industrial complex of the 1950s and 1960s.

Other professions would be more useful at the state/local level, where education, administration, and public healthcare facilities dominate spending.