Dumb Question.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm curious why there is never a "poor man/woman" in the Oval Office.
Why is this?

There are plenty of well educated, well rounded, moral, fiscally responsible--but not affluent--people who could make great Presidential candidates.
Other than the cost of campaigning, why do we see no one from the "other half" of America's spectrum represented during election time.

I have always maintained a skeptical opinion that becoming President is simply another business transaction. It is a political means to a financial end...and maybe this is enforced by the paltry sum a President earns while in office, which pales in comparison to what they would earn in the private sector.

Can someone ever become President who is in the majority of wage earners, and not the select minority of b/millionaires?
....After all, you can become anything in America...right?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,393 • Replies: 28

No top replies

Eisenhower?
Lincoln?
Fillmore?

There's bound to be more.....

0 Replies

Andrew Johnson was an indentured servant at one point. I believe Fillmore was one as well.

0 Replies

The nation has had a number of men who rose to the Presidency on their military records. Few of them were wealthy, and some downright poor. Grant is a good example. He was a failure at everything he ever put his hand to before the Civil War. Though many enriched themselves in government just after the Late Unpleasantness, Grant did not. He was in the depths of a crushing poverty, bankrupt. Only the income from his biography kept his family from the poorhouse after his death. Ike was a poor boy, and lived after the Presidency on his Presidential and Army pensions. Those are only two out of a reasonably long list.

Wilson was the President at Princeton, and was not known for his personal wealth. Herbert Hoover, whose reputation BTW has been unfairly tarnished, was an engineer by trade. He came to national prominence by the efficiency and effectiveness with which he administered aide to the starving people in Europe.

Lincoln was born poor, but by the time he reached national prominence he was reasonably wealthy ... but for his wife's spending habits. His second VP, Andrew Johnson was by trade a poor shoemaker.

There are many paths that have led to the Executive Mansion, and not all of them are great personal wealth. Just as important to political success is reputation and fame. Until the mid-20th century, political connections were more important that either money or fame. Nominees were selected by a relatively small number of insiders within the political parties, and the campaigns were neither finance by the candidates nor the federal government. For about a third of our political history, it was thought improper for the candidate to even actively campaign.

There does seem to be a trend toward selecting candidates with big money, national name recognition, and some serious political connections. It is of some concern, but not too much. Which would we prefer in office, those who are failures or those who have demonstrated their ability to build wealth, reputation and political power?

0 Replies

I'm not sure if you need to be rich, but you do have to be well connected, and maybe that is hard to do these days if you aren't rich. What was Clinton's background? I know he went to Ivy league schools, but I seem to recall he was from relatively modest beginnings.

0 Replies

Quote:

There are plenty of well educated, well rounded, moral, fiscally responsible--but not affluent--people who could make great Presidential candidates.

First, the average American who is working and paying bills doesn't want to be president. It's a lot more work than your average job and puts tremendous pressure our your family.

Second, voters generally want a successful individual as president, and money is an easy way to judge success.

Third, people of limited financial means, with few exceptions, just aren't going to know as many people that can really help with a campaign.

I'm sure there are lots of other reasons not on my list.

Now, that's not to say that formerly poor people haven't been president; quite the opposite, as has been pointed out already. A person from modest beginnings, who achieves much is an ideal presidential candidate, unlike a person from modest beginnings who fails to rise.

0 Replies

Quote:

First, the average American who is working and paying bills doesn't want to be president. It's a lot more work than your average job and puts tremendous pressure our your family.

Second, voters generally want a successful individual as president, and money is an easy way to judge success.

Third, people of limited financial means, with few exceptions, just aren't going to know as many people that can really help with a campaign.

Your first and third reasons are extremely good; the one in the middle, not so good, as money can come from, well, anywhere.

Just look at our current President; can you name a profitable business he ran that didn't fold? How about a state who showed a profit while he ran it? Obviously, the money in this case is NOT a 'sign of success'.....

Your third reason is the best one; it's not how much money you have, it's who you know, and how much money THEY have...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer...

0 Replies

Idaho wrote:

First, the average American who is working and paying bills doesn't want to be president. It's a lot more work than your average job and puts tremendous pressure our your family.

Well, I for one put in 10 hours a day at work and then countless hours at home for a measly $50 grand Cdn.
Any job that will more than quadruple my income, add a few more hours to my work day, allow me to travel the world, become tax exempt, give me a house, an expense account, a phenomenal pension, and allow me to network with some of the richest most brilliant people in the world doesn't look too bad to me.

Idaho wrote:

Second, voters generally want a successful individual as president, and money is an easy way to judge success.

In addition to what has already been said, money, or financial wealth does not entail that one is or has been successful. It's probably the worst indicator of success in my mind.

Idaho wrote:

Third, people of limited financial means, with few exceptions, just aren't going to know as many people that can really help with a campaign.

Which is the crux of my problem:
Even the richest men in the Oval office campaign and bring in obscene amount of money...but who is donating?
Bush often gets criticized that he's in the pockets of many oilmen...and then you see him immediately sign an executive order (13212) which allows him to "expedite their review of permits or take other actions necessary to accelerate the completion of energy related products" as soon as he is innagurated.
Rich people have rich friends who give lots of money to the Presidential nominee with conditions and promises attached to them.

0 Replies

Who is more successful: (1) A bum on the street .... or (2) a millionaire in a mansion?

Who would you cast your vote to be president, between those two, if that is all you knew about them?

Money may not be a valid indicator of a successful person, but that fact probably escapes most voters.

0 Replies

Is there nothing between bumb and millionaire?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Is there nothing between bumb and millionaire?

Sure there is, but I think my point is made more clear by the example I gave, don't you? :wink:

0 Replies

Not if the conservatives get their way...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Is there nothing between bumb and millionaire?

Sure there is, but I think my point is made more clear by the example I gave, don't you? :wink:

I guess not, since nobody really expects a bumb to be president. There are people who could be considered successes who are not rich. It depends on what one's goals are.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Is there nothing between bum and millionaire?

Sure there is, but I think my point is made more clear by the example I gave, don't you? :wink:

I guess not, since nobody really expects a bum to be president. There are people who could be considered successes who are not rich. It depends on what one's goals are.

I'm not arguing with you that there are very successful people who are not rich. And I agree that money is not a good indicator of whether someone is a successful person or not. But I also do think a voter is going to vote for the person he perceives as the more successful. Everything else being equal, that means they will vote for the money guy, and not the poor guy, every time.

0 Replies

That's because we teach the wrong morals in our society nowdays.

It has nothing to do with religion, or conservatism, or liberalism; and everything to do with consumerism. We've taught our society that money=success, instead of HAPPINESS=success...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's because we teach the wrong morals in our society nowdays.

It has nothing to do with religion, or conservatism, or liberalism; and everything to do with consumerism. We've taught our society that money=success, instead of HAPPINESS=success...

Cycloptichorn

While I do understand where you're coming from, pragmatically speaking, providing for one's family and self is a basic human need. This selfish need is satisfied by the accumulation of wealth and material things. I'm not sure that need is taught so much as it's a reality. Most people are not going to vote for the bum on the street as opposed to the successful rich guy, and this is the case regardless of what "morals" society has taught them. It's probably as simple as they want to vote for the person that is most reflective of how they view themselves, or how they wish to be. They don't want to be a bum on the street, so they don't vote for him.

0 Replies

If given the choice between a bum and a millionaire for president, I agree it's not likely the American people would choose the bum. But given the choice between someone who has a long and shining career in public service or diplomacy who may not have accumulated a fortune, and someone who has made millions of dollars in the stock market, it could be a tougher choice.

There are a lot of alternatives to millionaire and bum. As well, a need for money for survival is not the same as a need to accumulate wealth.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

If given the choice between a bum and a millionaire for president, I agree it's not likely the American people would choose the bum. But given the choice between someone who has a long and shining career in public service or diplomacy who may not have accumulated a fortune, and someone who has made millions of dollars in the stock market, it could be a tougher choice.

There are a lot of alternatives to millionaire and bum. As well, a need for money for survival is not the same as a need to accumulate wealth.

Yes, obviously that would be a tougher choice, but then I was only trying to highlight the money factor is a legitimate issue in a presidential election, as far as the voters are concerned. In our society, Money equates with Success, like it or not.

0 Replies

Quote:

In our society, Money equates with Success, like it or not.

THAT is the problem. We have this perception, but it doesn't really match reality, yaknow?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Dumb Question.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know