Criticism of Politicians

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Something that has been getting to me for a long time is the criticism of politicians. No, not criticizing politicians on individual issues, but criticizing the entire class. Informed criticism of a politician, or even an entire party, based on an actual issue, is perfectly fine and necessary to a democracy. However, the villainization of the class is, in my mind, completely unacceptable. Why?

1) It is a blatant and unnecessary generalization.

2) There exist many, many decent politicians. The only problem is that they don't get press, or at least not for the good deeds.

3) It is a difficult job, and it is understandable that a politician may slip up. Ask yourself - could you do that job just as well or better? The answer, in the vast majority of cases, is no.

4) A politician cannot always be honest;
4a) due to preservation of the security of the state, and/or;
4b) due to slip-ups, and/or;
4c) due to not having all necessary information at the time, and/or;
4d) because not all information is necessarily correct.

5) The political class, as a whole, does a good job. This does not mean consultation of the people is not necessary, but that politicians as a whole should not be condemned.

[CountArach]

I believe that you have hit the nail on the head as to why they are criticised, not in your numbered points, but rather by referring to them as a "class". They often consider themselves somehow difference from other people and hence they can seem aloof. Once you add careerism to that you end up with a lot of nasty possibilities.

[Marshal Murat]

The only problem is that they don't get press, or at least not for the good deeds.
Bad news sells better than 'politician solves local problems'.

[Lemur]

They often consider themselves somehow difference from other people and hence they can seem aloof.
Not here in 'Merica. Here they drink beer and talk dumb (http://nymag.com/guides/summer/2008/48007/) to let us know they're one of us.


In a new book, The Anti-Intellectual Presidency, Elvin T. Lim subjects all the words ever publicly intoned by American presidents to a thorough statistical analysis—and he finds, unsurprisingly, an alarmingly steady decline. A century ago, Lim writes, presidential speeches were pitched at a college reading level; today, they’re down to eighth grade [...] Since 1913, the length of the average presidential sentence has fallen from 35 words to 22. Between Nixon and the second Bush, the average presidential sound bite shrank from 42 seconds to 7. Today’s State of the Unions inspire roughly 30 seconds of applause for every 60 seconds of speech. Although it’s tempting to blame the sorry state of things on the current malapropist-in-chief, Bush is only the latest flower (though, obviously, a particularly striking one) on a very deep weed. Our most brilliant presidents, Lim says, often work hard to seem publicly dumb in order to avoid the stain of elitism—amazingly, Bill Clinton’s total rhetorical output checks in at a lower reading level than Bush’s.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I believe that you have hit the nail on the head as to why they are criticised, not in your numbered points, but rather by referring to them as a "class". They often consider themselves somehow difference from other people and hence they can seem aloof. Once you add careerism to that you end up with a lot of nasty possibilities.

But the political class isn't made up of a single cloned person, or even a single cloned personality. It's like saying that an entire hockey league is made up of the same type of person, over and over again. It's not - you have workers, slackers, and everywhere in between. Some of your players mighr be warm, making everyone feel welcome. Some might be cold as ice (pardon the pun), sending children scurrying with only a glance.

They're all different.

[CountArach]

But the political class isn't made up of a single cloned person, or even a single cloned personality. It's like saying that an entire hockey league is made up of the same type of person, over and over again. It's not - you have workers, slackers, and everywhere in between. Some of your players mighr be warm, making everyone feel welcome. Some might be cold as ice (pardon the pun), sending children scurrying with only a glance.

They're all different.
I agree with you - there are some good politicians and I do stand up for those that I believe are good. However, the majority fit into the category of out-of-touch and aloof.

[Lemur]

However, the majority fit into the category of out-of-touch and aloof.
All generalizations are true, except for the ones that are not. Furthermore, there are two kinds of people: Those who believe that there are two kinds of people, and those who don't.

[CountArach]

All generalizations are true, except for the ones that are not. Furthermore, there are two kinds of people: Those who believe that there are two kinds of people, and those who don't.
Dude, you just blew my mind...

[Crazed Rabbit]

The thing is, there's lousy people everywhere in every profession.

Politicians, though, are the only ones who make out to rule us through force of law. You can't refuse to deal with them.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Politicians, though, are the only ones who make out to rule us through force of law. You can't refuse to deal with them.

CR

Not necessarily. The entire bureaucracy has some sort of power over you, for a start. Secondly, the judges in all of the courts, as well as the police officers. Even the grocers have a form of power over you. You can refuse to deal with the last one. That's it. Heck, you can refuse to deal with politicians - just live as a hermit in some remote place, grow your own food, and survive by yourself.

Nobody is perfect. If we don't expect ourselves to be perfect, we shouldn't expect others to be. Everyone screws up. Everyone has someone who disagrees with them.

[Husar]

Not necessarily. The entire bureaucracy has some sort of power over you, for a start.

That's why people hate bureaucrats as well. ~D
You cannot generalize that all people are different either, my clone and I find that highly offensive. ~;)

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think its partly because of the way politicians argue like children at Westminster.

Often the backbenchers seem to be the only ones holding onto some form of ideology. Many politicians seem to just see the job in terms of furthering their careers, and doing an efficient enough job without really doing anything drastic.

Some good communist and fascist parties would at least make things more interesting.

[CountArach]

Some good communist and fascist parties would at least make things more interesting.
Neither of which would truly want to be elected :wink:

[Cronos Impera]

Leaders are just parasites, simply individuals weaker than the rest who gain resources by establishing relatinships with different community members. They always make their supporters feel good about themselves and complacent. They are the ones who say loud and clear that this half is better or worse than the other.
Chiefs, or bosses on the other hand are just individuals who are better professionaly than their counterparts. THEY ALWAYS make their subordinates feel bad about themselves and their chiefs. If a chief does a poorer job than one of his subordiantes he is immeadetly deposed and tossed in the dustbin.

So I prefear a boss over the leader. Least the boss is more competent than me.

[Beirut]

5) The political class, as a whole, does a good job. This does not mean consultation of the people is not necessary, but that politicians as a whole should not be condemned.

They do an adequate job, not necessarily a good job. They, as a whole, as a matter of course, allow a mountain of abuses to occur and, indeed, are often the root cause of the abuses. That being true, and I think it is, it allows us to condemn the whole rotten lot of them with the most colourful epithets the language affords.

[Lemur]

Chiefs, or bosses on the other hand are just individuals who are better professionaly than their counterparts. [...] If a chief does a poorer job than one of his subordiantes he is immeadetly deposed and tossed in the dustbin.
Um, I'm taking it from this post that you've never worked in the private sector ....

[Kralizec]

As long as there's enough to chose from, it's fine by me. As such I have more problems with the concept of parties than with individual politicians: if there are a couple of parties wich manage to keep out newcomers, there's less to chose from, especially if the parties in question relentlessly enforce their respective doctrines.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

They do an adequate job, not necessarily a good job. They, as a whole, as a matter of course, allow a mountain of abuses to occur and, indeed, are often the root cause of the abuses. That being true, and I think it is, it allows us to condemn the whole rotten lot of them with the most colourful epithets the language affords.

I agree with the first part. For the second part, points one, two, three, and four apply. Politicians are not human scum, they're ordinary people trying to do their job to the best of their ability. There are, unfortuntately, a few career-minded scum who don't really care for the nation, but I'd say that's almost as much a fault of modern society than the fault of the politician - because when it comes down to it, an awful lot of people are exactly like that.

[rory_20_uk]

Politicians:

Never apologise for anything or in some cases even admit to the bloody obvious - let alone take responsibility for it. Head of department yes, responsibility for department? No.
View that their privacy is the same as anyone else's
Never feel the need to reduce their salaries even when extolling others to do so.

I'm not sure what they are doing a good job on. Intelligence dossiers? Not really. Managing the economy? Nope - good at basking in a global boom and saving nothing for the recession.

Politicians need to get chosen at local level to stand and then enter Westminster. If they decide to have a conscience they will get nowhere. So the ones who are honest fall by the wayside and the ones that get ahead are the backstabbing, double dealing fairweather friends we've got.

Would I be electable? I'm not sure. Could I do a better job? I'm sure that I could do so more than at least 90% of them.

~:smoking:

[LittleGrizzly]

Im sure alot start out with plenty of good intentions, but if theres one job to wear you down and turn you into a cycnical guy who just does what he has to then its politics.... Its the job rather than the people i would say

maybe partially a combanation of the type of people who go for the job... ambitous greedy power hungry... ect.

[yesdachi]

Spend a little time around a politician and you will quickly find they are genuinely sincere about being fake.

I love the idea of a republic where we have representatives who will listen to what their people want and need and fight to better society for the people they represent. But instead we have a complete failure from our politicians to listen to what people want and actually give it to them. Michigan may be an oddity but I doubt it.
BTW Michigan is probably the worst state in the union right now (unless you are looking for cheep vacation property).

I am not sure if it is the politicians that suck or the system, it is probably a combination but if the system sucks or is broke, isn’t it the politicians job to fix it?

[Gregoshi]

Im sure alot start out with plenty of good intentions, but if theres one job to wear you down and turn you into a cycnical guy who just does what he has to then its politics.... Its the job rather than the people i would say

That's kind of my take on it too LG. When you are constantly wined and dined and treated special in order to influence your decisions, it must gradually rub off and reinforce over time the feeling that you are above others.

Probably one of the most disheartening things I saw about our political system was during a visit to DC. We were walking around the Capitol building and there was a Congressman (don't know who) being interviewed in front of cameras and lights...and he was standing on a wooden box to look taller. I checked, it wasn't a soapbox. :soapbox:

As trivial as that seems, it said volumes to me about appearances over substance. However, I'm undecided if that reflected poorly on the state of the politicians or on we voters. Probably both. :shame:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Let's recap some points:

1) Politicians lie and act "fake" to keep their jobs.

2) Politicians don't take responsibility when they're wrong (which I disagree with, as quite a few politicians do take responsibility - but never mind that for now).

3) The job wears you down.

4) The system sucks, but they're not trying to fix it.

What do all of these points have in common? Exactly. They're what almost every single person does on a fairly regular basis. The expectations we have of politicians are almost superhuman, far beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of people.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What do all of these points have in common? Exactly. They're what almost every single person does on a fairly regular basis. The expectations we have of politicians are almost superhuman, far beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of people.
Make a poor car, have an off year. Make a bad law, imprison thousands, tax millions. If they can't live up to the challenge (and I don't think anyone who is electable could) then they should be granted minimal authority.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Make a poor car, have an off year. Make a bad law, imprison thousands, tax millions. If they can't live up to the challenge (and I don't think anyone who is electable could) then they should be granted minimal authority.

Oh, I'm not against libertarianism to a certain extent, but you must admit that people around the western world usually do pretty well with their governments. I mean, I don't like mine because they're pushing the Lisbon Treaty, but at the same time, they're not doing a bad job. I just disagree with them, based on policy.

[Husar]

If they're not superhuman then why do they sign up for the job?

Personally I don't remember nor plan doing #1 and #4 seems directly linked to it. Since #4 is the essence of their job, fixing it would most likely fix a great deal of #1, that means if they actually did what we pay them for then there wouldn't be as much of a need to lie.
Or in other words if you paid someone to fix your toilet and he still didn't get the job done after two years, would you keep paying him and say he's alright? :inquisitive:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Or in other words if you paid someone to fix your toilet and he still didn't get the job done after two years, would you keep paying him and say he's alright? :inquisitive:

If it was a ridiculously hard toilet to fix, and not many others could do it better, than yes, you keep paying him.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Oh, I'm not against libertarianism to a certain extent, but you must admit that people around the western world usually do pretty well with their governments. I mean, I don't like mine because they're pushing the Lisbon Treaty, but at the same time, they're not doing a bad job. I just disagree with them, based on policy.
Since policy is their job, I think they certainly are doing a poor job. With the state of our economy, our debt, our mortgaged future, the war, Guantanamo, invasion of privacy, yeah I'd say they're doing a pretty poor job.

The beauracrats are merely "following orders."

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Since policy is their job, I think they certainly are doing a poor job. With the state of our economy, our debt, our mortgaged future, the war, Guantanamo, invasion of privacy, yeah I'd say they're doing a pretty poor job.

I'd agree with you that in America politicians in general are doing a poor job, but elsewhere in the western world, I don't think they're doing that badly. Anyways, I'd say that's as much the fault of the two-party system than of the individual politicians.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What constitutes as "good"? Allowing enough economic freedoms to ensure that the existing infrastructure allows enough people to live comfortably?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What constitutes as "good"?

I'd say that maintaining the status quo is adequate, and improving it, even slightly, is good.

[CountArach]

I'd say that maintaining the status quo is adequate, and improving it, even slightly, is good.
Improvement is relative in the vast majority of cases. I imagine our views of improvement are quite different.

[Adrian II]

Least the boss is more competent than me.That cracked me up. Clearly someone who has no work experience. :laugh4: