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 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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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?