Are politics salvageable?

I listend to both acts and instead of precluding both democrates and republicans in my statement I will instead include them both:

No, politics are not salvgeable. Government has become big business whose sole purpose is to expand even further in order to stay in business. We, as citizens, pay the price.

I fear this is the case too. It seems both sides, despite intention (in some cases) only care about the penis measuring and money grubbing.

I like that show alot but was out of touch with it for a time. We have basically shut our dish off so every night I listen to an old radio show.

Thanks for playing by the rules.

TTF

Bump - Take a look at this people. I think it is a good discussion and a good radio segment.

TTF

p.s. Okay maybe it is just me that thinks it is good.

Re: Are politics salvageable?
I don't think your topic is controversial enough to generate a lot of responses.



I've been thinking about this and the question I have for you is:

Do you want government to take care of you?

I will attempt to keep my answer as non-partisan as possible. I believe your question overlooks the reality of todays 24/7 media scrutiny of all politicians and any mistakes they may have committed over their entire lives. What you see today is the result of that scrutiny.......people are human and they make mistakes. That does not mean they are forever incapable of making a moral or ethical decision. Place yourself in the position of any of today's politicians and ask yourself if you would subject yourself and your family to the paparazzi syndrome of the 24/7 news cycle........if you could or would then you have missed your calling.

In most cases, NOT ALL by any means, people who apply for top political office have either led squeaky clean lives......or,more likely......they have developed elephant skin and are oblivious to criticism. In the case of the one with elephant skin, which unfortunately includes a high percentage of today's political leaders, they have been forced to compromise their integrity so many times in their climb to the top, that they do more harm than good to our system once they arrive at the top because they have developed flawed motives(such as self perservation and self aggrandizement) which do not include the public interest

What I am trying to say is that the environment has shaped politics and our lives without our consent because we have not actually recognized the process. We cannot change the result back to happier and less complicated times so we must adapt to the way it is now. This will require better education for all Americans,......and .......a demand that all news media become more accountable for the crap they try to feed us.

Getting down off soapbox.

I really enjoy This American Life, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to listen to the segment. I do think your question is a good one though and I promise to only break rule #1.

The first thing I think we must appreciate is that while instantaneous, 24 hour media coverage has had an impact on the tactics of politics, the underlying fundamentals are the same as they have always been.

It is now and always has been a dirty business which is focused more on the accrual of personal power than anything else, but still manages to end up serving the people.

Politics in a democracy is very much like a free market. The fundamental principle is that pursuing self-interest will ultimately serve the interests of the whole.

People enter politics for any number of reasons, but they remain in politics because they learn how to play the game -- you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. To remain in power, an elected official must, in some way, satisfy the interests of his or her constituency. If he or she fails to do so there will be no re-election.

This of course leads to ridiculous situations such as each state receiving an equal share of Homeland Security funds, and all sorts of other pork spending. While this mechanism doesn't properly serve all the citizens of the nation, it does serve some, and that is the goal of an elected official - serve the needs of the people responsible for returning him to office.

From time to time local constituencies unite and advance issues that favor the nation as a whole rather than their individual locales. Generally this is accomplished by politicians who have secured their positions with their local constituencies and are able to focus on much broader national issues, but it rarely entails the advancement of a policy that may benefit the nation but harm the locale of the champion(s). There are many politicians who decided to vote with their conscious and trust the good sense of their constituents, only to find that they weren't going to get another chance at voting with or without their conscious.

It's a mess but it works better than any other form of government. We can all agree that a truly benevolent dictator is probably the ideal form of government, but it is unlikely that we can agree on what constitutes the manifestation of that benevolence, and (more importantly) it is virtually impossible for us to find the Benevolent Dictator - absolute power corrupts etc etc.

It's actually quite uplifting that so many of us feel that politicians are not truly serving the interests of the nation. It means that we have not succumbed to cynicism and that we still believe that a government that serves only the best interests of the nation can exist.

In reality, it can and it can't because there will never be a total consensus on what the best interests of the nation may be, and yet the system is driven by satisfying the interests of many.

It is a canard that business holds any greater sway over politicians that it did in the past, and that it can fix elections. Without a doubt, Business plays a powerful role in politics, but then it plays a powerful role in virtually all aspects of society. Why would we expect otherwise? However, Business (and especially today) cannot buy votes. It can provide a candidate with the money necessary to advertise his positions, but it cannot guarantee that those positions will be accepted by the voters.

To the extent that political advertising is able to sway the uninformed and apathetic, who is to blame for that? If someone is voting for a candidate simply because he or she has seen his name more often than his opponent's, than it's hard to argue that Business has corrupted the process.

Finally, as it relates to the influence of so-called Big Business, the interests of Big Business most often advance the interests of the individuals employed by them. If the banking industry employees a million citizens (and I have no idea if this is too high or too low an estimate) than it stands to reason that anything which helps the banking industry to remain viable and profitable, benefits its employees. That these interests may not coincide with the interests on non-banking employees is not much different from a situation where the interests of citizens in Texas may not be favorably impacted by advancing the interests of Alaskan citizens.

Ultimately, politics will only improve if our natures improve, and since that is most likely a long way off, I'm afraid we're stuck with what we have -- the best system available on earth.

Keep in mind, that the Founding Fathers who, one might argue, were the greatest collection of idealist in history, premised their structuring of our government on the belief that if allowed free reign, human nature would result in poor governance.

Like many other complex systems, the value of our political system cannot be reliably identified at the the most basic components (e.g. a neighborhood in Detroit), but at a more macro level over a longer period of time, it plays out.

Government Sometimes would do somethings wrong,but we couldn't find the truth in eyes and ears.What shoud we do?Should we trust government anymore?

I agree with jp's assessment of government's real role. This is a distinctly nonpartisan statement.

Okay, I broke rule #1. I didn't follow the link.

I feel that government should be kept as small as possible. To many people feel that our government is there to govern over us. I feel perfectly capable of governing myself. Governmet should instead focus on protecting our constitutional rights and protecting us militarily. The smaller government is, the easier it will be to hold them accountable for their actions.

Politics is not salvegable, because people insist on labelling each other as left and right, and demonising the others, instead of discussing the real issues.

There's a lot wrong with today's politics, and overpartisanizing (I'm sure that's not a real word) is one of the biggest. If you guys want to read a good article on how partisan politics have evolved into a beast that cannot be tamed, check out this one by Fareed Zakaria, who, by the way, never seems to be wrong. On anything. Fareed Zakaria: TV, Money, and Crossfire Politics

It's interesting to note that, in his leaving-of-office address, George Washington warned the young American nation against political parties, forseeing the troubles they would bring. Oh George, if you saw the way things are now, you'd be pretty disappointed.

More and more, politicians are figuring out what the people want to hear and going along with that, rather than having real viewpoints of their own. We saw this with John Kerry, we've seen it with Karl Rove, and there are countless others whom we can point at. This makes for very presentable politicians who are highly unreliable and never get anything done.

The case seems to be that politicians are interested in power and not, necessarily, doing a good job to further society. Moreover, the politicians have for decades and will continue to lie in order to get into office, and do whatever they want once they've been elected. Was it Plato in the Republic who said that the ideal ruler was someone who was qualified but didn't necessarily want the position? That way, the leader would be able to make the correct decisions without abuse of his power.

Add to this the unfortunate fact that it's damn near impossible to get into any office of any kind without a huge quantity of money, usually gained via inheritance and just sitting around waiting to be spent putting a hypocritical bureaucrat interested in self-advancement and not society's greater needs into power.

Another alarming trend is the career politician, usually found in the Senate or House of Representatives, who will maintain his/her tenure as long as humanly possible. Just look at Ted Kennedy - he was elected in 1962, meaning he's been in office for fourty-three years!! There is no chance, I think, that someone who's been in politics for that long could possibly have any idea what the common man lives like today. Maybe he did during the 100th Congress, but now? During the 108th? I can't see how that's likely. Kennedy was just an example; this isn't an isolated incident. While they may not be on-the-ball in terms of what the average person wants, one thing can be said for career politicians like this: They've undoubtably become masters of the art of deception and intrigue.

Are politics salvageable? Yes. But it'll need all the politicans to leave office, today, and be replaced by an entirely new type of people. This will not happen today, and I don't think it will happen tomorrow. We seem to be stuck with it.


...
I'm sorry for ranting.

My solution? New country. On the moon. Luna Free State. Libertarian utopia of civil freedoms and majority rule, no bureaucratic government of any sort, let alone a figurehead leader - anybody else interested?

Good post Francisco.

thanks :wink:

And this is precisely why so many people are incapable of achievement through political means.

Politics doesn't mean rational and intelligent debate on issues where the goal is the betterment of society rather than butressing a power base.

"Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?"

Now aside from the fact that this was a rip off of GB Shaw by Bobby Kennedy, it is typical of the sort of inspirational rhetoric that induces people to vote for a candidate, but not much more.

The Godseed does reside within us all, but it rarely (if ever) manifests itself in politics, and yet so many ingenues long for it to be so.

Herein lies the dilemma of compromise.

If someone has a passionate belief on a given issue, culturaly, our expectations are that such a person will remain absolutely true to his beliefs. We admire the Lone Wolf who fights The Power. We adore (And neither Conservatives or Liberals are entirely happy with this penchant of ours) the Rugged Individualist who flips the bird at centralized authority.

However...the reality is that while there are times when it is appropriate to brook no compromise, most often, compromise is the only way to keep the skids greased.

As one might expect, for the true believer, compromise is a dirty word and those who embrace its therapy are to be damned. And yet those who believe that each and every issue can be compromised are cynical to the extreme.

Sophistication of thought will lead us to the realization that absolute positions are rarely tenable. However, we need to beware the opposite end of the spectrum which endorse compromise on any issue or intransigent defense of any principle.

Unfortunately, the great majority of people in this country and the world, are not, at all, comfortable with ambiguity, nuance and paradox. Despite what they may announce on e-forums or company conferences, they really do not want to be left to their own devices.

Well, I should add that they do wish to be left to their own devices providing they are not held accountible for their decisions.

Once accountiblity is imposed on indivduals, they, generally, seek to be presented with a detailed blueprint of what they must do. Thus they are able to say: "Hey, I followed the rule. If the results didn't work out, it's not my fault!"

Mankind is a wonderful. but flawed species. Striking a balance between the Neandertal and Braniac Future Man is something we will continue to struggle with, and which will manifest itself in politics for years to come.

I checked to be sure, and found this (look at the bottom of the linked page):

"There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"

Robert Kennedy misquoted Shaw, but he attributed the quote to Shaw. Characterizing that as a rip off was an unnecessary sneer, not something i am surprised to see.

Well, thank God Setanta is on The Beat.

When Bobbie used this phrase in his speech(es), he did not provide attribution to Shaw. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I will be happy to admit my error.

I happened to be a Bobby K fanatic and I think I would have recalled such attribution, but perhaps not.

Acknowledging it was Shaw who made the initial pronouncement of principle, is almost OK. Only OK because there are far too many UK intellectuals who will not tolerate the service of erstwhile pap.

Oppressed Nation of The West...take in the refugees (or do not)

Ah, more sneers, you do not disappoint.



You apparently did not use the link i provided.



Yes, perhaps not.



An odd turn of phrase for "a Bobby K fanatic." I'm curious to know whether you consider Bobbie correct, or Bobby--not that it's very important.



Completely unintelligible. I salute you.

I agree, spoken like a true Libertarian, jp.

My problem with politicians are the career politicians who pretend to be performing public service when, in fact, they are egomaniacs looking to advance their own personal power base. Peter Fitzgerald, R-IL is a good counter example and a model of what I would like to see in more politicians. See a problem, offer your services to fix the problem, and then move on. I don't necessarily agree with him on the issues, but I think he's in it for the right reasons.

My problem with the two-party system as it exists in this country today, is the primary process and the fact that moderate candidates from either party get swallowed up by the extremists during the primaries. Where might we be today if either Bill Bradley or John McCain had survived the primary season in 2000?

Oh, if only McCain had made it through the primaries.

I'd vote for McCain for President of Earth today. Or Bradley. Or Barack Obama, for that matter.

And I'd throw Ted Kennedy, George Bush (and his entire neoCon administration) and John Kerry out on the doorstep.