> politics is something that everyone is meant to be qualified to comment on, by virtue of the fact that every adult is considered to be informed enough about politics to vote

I don't agree with this. Just because you have the right to vote does not mean you're informed. Just like the right to free speech doesn't mean what you say is worth listening too. The freedom to comment doesn't mean the comments will be any good.

> but as a Democratic Party congressperson representing that area, she could easily influence policy to improve the running of that city/county.

This just feels like a rationalized excuse to me. He criticizes her for changes unrelated to her responsibilities or power and then it's not off target because she could have tried to fix those things anyway? She's not involved there - I doubt you can effectively engage in two complex policy/politics arenas and be effective.

She wouldn't know the specific details and wouldn't have time/access to work with people in the state government on it. To me it's like blaming a cardiologist for stomach cancer because they work in the same general medical field, it shows a complete lack of understanding of basic government.

> As for “pretending to be wise”; he doesn’t seem to be offering a neutral position

He's making a false equivalence between two major party candidates with the general message being they're equivalently bad so let's try a third crazy person instead (with some weak justifications). The 'everyone is bad' argument is the above the fray pretending to be wise bit. Then he gets the details wrong.

> But this notion that is morally incumbent for everyone to endorse and vote for a major party candidate

Not voting for a major party candidate is equivalent to not voting in its effect. It's basically a position that either major party candidate is similarly bad.

> How is it not acceptable for an educated person to adopt such a view as: "this whole circus is a stupid game orchestrated by media behemoths, financial institutions, military contractors and other cronies and rent-seekers, and it serves mostly to divide and exploit ordinary individuals and families in order that a small number of elite insiders can profit, and I choose not to play a role in perpetuating it"?

I know this position well because it was often held by people around me growing up. It's a position that sounds smart, but isn't - and feels a lot like the being above the fray pretending to be wise signaling. I've never met someone who holds it and has a good nuanced understanding of the issues - they're always just dismissing things out of hand without having tried to understand any of it. I recognize this could be read as me just putting people I disagree with in a class of 'no nuanced understanding', but look at this essay as an example. A strong position from someone who is openly admitting they have barely learned anything about what they're talking about.

I'm not arguing there aren't problems in government (perverse incentives, cronies, rent-seekers, etc.) - doing something complex at scale is hard, but it's possible to learn about policy and what people are actually doing and come to an informed decision about the details. You can read things like The World As It Is, you can read about people that work in the government (or work there yourself). You can see the real effects of policy in action and the effects of legal shifts on history.

The position you mention is intellectually weak as well as wrong, people are free to hold it - but when I read a long screed about it (this essay) filled with even dumber arguments (and conspiracies) pushing for a crazy person to hold the office I'm compelled to call it out for what it is.

[Also - as an aside I appreciate the thoughtful back and forth. The discussion is in good faith, the wording above isn't an attack of your comment - I'm happy to try and make how I think about this clearer/disagree in a pleasant way.]