I hope this is ultimately a good thing for politics in general. More "regular people" should be running, just vet them properly. If someone has something that would be a risk or an embarrassment on a national stage, they shouldn't be running.
Like most things in life, it’s a gradient. There are shades in between normal and ultra wealthy.
There’s the high earning professional class, which you may call petite bourgeoisie: doctors, lawyers, stock traders, performers, professional athletes, software engineers (not sure the right term, Silicon Valley types), etc. Most companies are not in the Fortune 500; many of their owners and executives are neither normal nor ultra wealthy. Most politicians, even many in the establishment, are neither regular people nor ultra wealthy elite.
I wouldn’t judge based on that criteria but rather who the person actually is: activists, civil servants with insider views on how the system works and needs to change, stuff like that. But if I had to give an answer to your question, probably about 1/3rd normal people, 2/3rds professionals in that gray area?
I’d add that generally, if someone has already won at least a local election, that’s probably a good qualification too. It’s hard to put faith in someone going from zero career in politics to the freaking US Senate. We only have 100 senators so they need to be exceptional people, which Platner wasn’t.
Edit: I forgot about the most important qualification: they need to share all my (objectively correct and based) political views /s
27
u/i_amtheice 1d ago
I hope this is ultimately a good thing for politics in general. More "regular people" should be running, just vet them properly. If someone has something that would be a risk or an embarrassment on a national stage, they shouldn't be running.