I think technical people too often lack the requisite political skills. We tend to be too honest and to the point. We find it hard to pander to people. For example, if I see a solution to a problem, and it is going to make me very unpopular to suggest it, I am still going to suggest it if it appears to be the best solution to the problem. Hence, I wouldn't get elected, because I didn't pander to the consituency.

Put me in Schumer's shoes. I am going to pound on the podium and say "The problem here with gas prices is because of us, and the way we built our society". I am going to come off sounding more like Kunstler, and that is not going to be a popular stance. The person who gets up and says that the oil companies are the problem, and they have a plan for punishing them and happily transitioning us all to alternative energy is the person who is going to be elected.

RR

Agreed, Robert, and this is Jay Hanson's assertion as to why democracy is fundamentally incapable of grappling with peak oil. I don't necessarily agree with all of Hanson's conclusions, but I do on the topic of democracy. People don't vote for whomever tells them the truth. People vote for whomever makes them feel good in whatever personal value space they currently hold.
As a practical matter, vote for the amiable drunk. Do not vote for the dry drunk, the drunk in denial, or the angry drunk. (Bush). Amiable drunks make the best politicians.

Mosca and Pareto shot the notion of representative democracy to hell definitively over 100 years ago. And they missed a few points.

Schumer has another option: he could Shut The F*ck Up. The only prominent person brave enough to talk like Jim Kunstler is, alas, Jim Kunstler. That is true. But Schumer could at least keep quiet instead of making himsef such a big part of the problem.