professional politics

A professional is someone who is paid to perform a task. A dentist is paid to care for teeth. A teacher is paid to impart an education. There are clearly defined and agreed upon definitions for professions; organizations are established to accredit individuals and revoke those credentials when ethical norms are breached. A general sense is shared among professionals that there is a right and proper way to conduct one's affairs coupled with an implicit threat of repercussion for excessive deviance, up to and including rejection from the professional community.

By the professionalist definition, a politician is someone who is paid to represent the people. Like other professions, there ought to be applicable norms of conduct. But what if there is a growing sentiment among the people that the norms, the institutions, and even the credentials associated with not just a particular profession, but the very legitimacy of professionalization itself, is a sham, an old boy's club? Nobody who wants decent dental care would argue in favor of the politicization of dentistry schools; only experts who know something about teeth about should have a say in who can be a dentist - unless you think that the American Dental Association is made up of a bunch of self-appointed hacks and industry shills.

Politics, by nature, is resistant to professionalization. When asking a political question such as, "should we levy taxes to pay for our schools?" anybody who pays taxes can be an expert, i.e., someone whose opinions on the matter ought to be considered. To argue otherwise, to leave the decision entirely up to trained economists or credentialed civil administrators, would be antithetical to the democratic principle. I argue that what differentiates the political from the professional is the degree to which non-expert opinions are deemed worthy of consideration.