[WS:] It is more nuanced than that. Technocracy can be superior to democracy under specific historical circumstances, but democracy can be superior under other. It really depends who controls technocrats, who controls political parties, and the like. An argument can be made that FDR was a technocracy that pushed for progressive reforms over the objection of political parties controlled by the capital ans southern whites. You also seem to argue that Obama should become more proactive pushing for health care reform to overcome the opposition coming from the parties controlled by inscos and medical establishment. So how it is not an argument for a form of technocracy?
And while we are at that, Timberger made a convincing case for revolutions from above in which technocrats abolished the party system controlled by landed elites.
Wojtek