February 5, 2008
-
Politics and Politicians
At this, the mid-point of a long and tiring political season, I think it might be a good idea to sum up our feelings about the nature and practice of Politics.
Politics is an idea as old as humankind - it is, simply put, The organization and management of the government of any society or group. Those engaged or interested in this practice are politicians and such people have a very important and difficult roll in our society. The politician who has been given political power in America has to attempt to satisfy, or at least not antagonize, many groups of Americans with wildly different opinions about the roll of government, its direction, and its policies. This is not an easy task, and as the politician's world of responsibility gets larger it becomes more and more difficult, if not almost impossible.
The local city councilman has enough trouble satisfying conflicting interests, this problem only increases at the county and state levels and at the national level the President can only govern effectivly if he/she has the support of at least a large minority of the citizens at least part of the time.
The desire to take on this difficult office usually resides in only the most self-confident and dedicated of those who are involved in the political process. Our process of selecting candidates soon weeds out those without experience or the backing of considerable numbers of supporters. The remaining candidates try to attract financing and less interested voters by stating their ideals and hopes as well as declaring how they will benefit those voters if they are elected. This is all pretty obvious and I'm sure any readers here will have been bombarded with political ads and promises to the point of nausea.
I would think any political candidate worthy of being elected President would be fully experienced in the political process and would be thoroughly aware of both the powers and the limitations of that office. I think that experience and service would be considered as important as goals and ideals, but such is sometimes not the case. Many voters seem to think NOT having experience is desirable and some candidates proudly trumpet their "outsider" status.
While being an inspirational stump speaker is a necessary talent for any politician, it is no more important than a candidate's race, gender, or military background; and none of these is anywhere near as important as a candidate's experience and political ability.
What do you think the most important criteria for selecting a President of the U.S. - or indeed for any political office - should be?
Comments (22)
You're linked
How does knowledge of the political process makes a person a better candidate for the office of being President?
Hi Jurgens, How does knowing how to operate make a doctor a better surgeon?
Seriously, I'm afraid more often than not, a country's leader is self-selected or selected by an electorate dazzeled by a simplistic slogan or promise.
The U.S. has had some simple awful presidents. The worst was probably a mid-western newspaper publisher named Warren G. Harding who looked like a president but soon found the job too much for him. His term was riddled with scandals and, though he was popular, he freely admitted that he was in over his head. He died in office, probably of a broken heart at realizing how badly he had failed. He was elected on the strength of his slogan "Return to Normalcy" Yes, I know "Normalcy" isn't a word - Harding didn't - he was ignorant of most of the political process and depended on a group of his poker cronies, who cheated at more than cards.
Is "I'm for Change" a really sensible reason for electing a person president? How about "I'll make the Constitution more Christian"? or "I'll abolish the Income Tax"?
Is the "change" really about being an outsider or would it be more, i'm here to change from how things have been working in this office. i want to work more with the other parts of goverment to make things run smoothly. could it be that that change is someone that understands how it works and would like to try it a different way. i think people are getting fed up with how the president and the congress seem to butt heads on just about everything and then nothing seems to be getting done. if they are trying to change that aspect of government I guess they would be seeing it as something new. i was too young, sorry, when Reagan took office, but if i remember right he was republican and the congress was democrat, but he was able to work to get things done. maybe i'm off on how it all went down and only remember what i've been told how it happened. I for one am dissatified with how things are being run. I'm tired of one party saying theirs is the only way and the other party saying nope you are wrong. if i remember correctly clinton, the first one, had congress on his side but still couldn't get things to go through. it is hard to get excited about someone even with what they stand for because it seems that no matter who gets in there we will not get too much done.
America needs a Rhinoceros Party.
Dick,
A friend of mine summarized with a solemn sentence the difference between American and Italian culture, which i only parcially agree: America is the land of individualism, Italy is the land of family.
Although Italian politics tends to become like american one, i still believe that politics should be something else. Politics should be the principles to drive the community, not for the good of the individuals (or the families), but for the good of the community itself.
To make a provocatory example, one interesting way to satisfy a majority (let's say... 60%) of Americans could be the enumeration of every single citizens in two lists, where any citizen will be assigned to each list completely by chance, so that 60% drop in the first list and 40% in the second. The candidate will publicize... let's say... in a spot during the superbowl the two lists and promise that, if elected, he will take all the wealth from each person in the 40%-list and distribute equally among the 60%-list people.
So, each one nominated in the 40%-list will obviously vote for the other candidate, but the ones in the 60%-list will have a lot of money after the election, if that candidate will win. If the logic of the election was the individualistic personal interest of the voters, i don't see why those 60%-voters shouldn't vote for that candidate.
This example, being provocatory, is intentionally extreme. It couldn't ever be applied (i hope) because of the limitations given by US constitution, and it wouldn't be accepted (also, i hope), by the American citizens, although the ones that are listed in the lucky list. My point is: should politics purpose be the personal interest of the citizen or something else? Shouldn't it be the good of the nation (and, being that the Nation on subject is the one that drives the rest of the world, by extension also the good of the world, also of that part that do not vote for the President of US)?
Rush: Agreement or at least accomodation between the President and Congress depends on BOTH being willing to modify their position. During the Reagan and Clinton years such was most often the case even though there were strong dissagreements on certain issues. Both Reagan and Clinton had to deal with a Congress dominated by the opposing party during much of their terms and despite very strong feelings on both sides, all parties recognized that the business of the nation must continue. Toward the end of Clinton's second term, the Republican-dominated congress developed the antagonistic attitude toward the Democratic party that has continued right down until today.
Four years ago the voters became so dissalusioned by Bush's policies that they gave the Dems a razor-thin majority in both the House and Senate, enough to block some of Bush's programs but not enough to pass programs he opposed, no matter how popular these programs/changes might be. The Dems have not had the Congressional strength to change the direction of U.S. policies which a majority of the voters seem to want. I expect that's why Obama's Change slogan is so attractive to so many people. Actually in their basic beliefs and policies, he and Hillary are pretty close and why so many Dems dream of a Clinton-Obama ticket, or the reverse.
Brink, The U.S. already has a Rhino party - several of them in fact.
Dario, it's hard to equate the U.S. and Italy politically, as Italy"s parliamentary form of government actually emphasizes individual political differences more then the U.S.'s does. With only two major parties in the U.S., each must try to be all things to all voters in order to round up enough of those basically individualistic votes to govern. To be sure, Italy's political parties probably are more like "Family" than the Huge diverse parties we have.
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with sensible reasons to elect any of the current candidates
The most important criteria for a President needs to be the ability to work with, and not antagonize, a wide varity of people. We can never hope to satisfy everyone, but we must get to the majority. Unfortunately, the current crop of candidates is the poorest in many years. I wish for a box we could use to reject all of them and have the parties go back and get some different candidatesn
Actually, since Romney dropped out ( a few minutes ago) it looks like a McCain -Huckabee contest for the Reps and of course Clinton -Obama for the Dems.
I would not be too surprised to see a national election starring all of the above. If so it will certainly give a clear choice, apparently with an emphasis on Internal - Domestic (Dems) or Foreign - World (Reps). Voter attitudes toward the economy and the Iraq War will probably tell the tale - which doesn't bode very well for the Reps. a Republican Administration would probably see a continuation of most present domestic policies while the "Change" a Democratic Administration would probably make is another run at Universal Health Care and budget balancing.
Until the party primaries, we can expect to see the Reps trying to soldify their party while the Dems will continue their usual messy lurch toward some kind of unity, which probably won't happen until the convention is well under way. Hopefully the national campaigns will not be repeats of the rather low and nasty tactics we have come to know and love.
All of the remaining serious candidates are experienced politicians who have demonstraited their ability to "reach across the aisle" and who are wary of outside influences.
Susan is right, some of the candidates who dropped out might have been better presidential material, but the first duty (and criteria for) a politician is to get elected; the second to faithfully represent the voters. The dropouts failed to attract enough interest to achieve the first criteria.
IMHO the single most important principle in this nation is our freedom, based on a document we all seem to have forgotten - the Constitution. I feel the most important criteria for choosing a President should be his (or her) record of voting and leadership as it relates to this document. Has he (or she) consistently followed the Constitution, even when it is unpopular to do so? Has he (or she) openly violated the Constitution, perhaps even while being criticized for doing so?
@tychecat - The political process is very much a process that require a lot of money ...do you think the current process in the USA favour the rich more than the poor?
Jurgens: There has been an attempt to make it easier for less wealthy candidates to run for the presidency, so far these attempts have been less than successful. If a candidate accepts the government campaign financing, they must agree to limit their total expences - as I remember the current amount is $40M. Al the current front-running candidates refused this offer and all have spent well over the limit and the campaign hasn't even started yet!
So far only one of he current candidates has attempted to finance his campaign with his own money(Romney - a Republican) and he just dropped out . Most of the others have been financed through contrbutions of individuals and PACs (Political Action Committees). It is unconstitutional for congress to attempt to limit campaign spending by candidates. There is no doubt that a rich person has a better chance of winning any elective office than a poor person here in the U.S.
Should all persons running for office have equal financing? That would require a Constitutional Amendment. Is it a good idea?
Hi!
lol I had some interesting questions come up when I answered your last comment on my site, which ended up being a whole nother post! I would be interested to hear what you think about it.. Take care and I hope you have a great day!
RYC: I'm curious, under what logic do you think the current income tax system is voluntary? Here's a little test: Don't pay taxes for the next 5 years, then see if taxes are so "voluntary" when the IRS is locking you up.
Sure, you are required to pay your taxes, but when was the last time you were audited? Our system currently depends on voluntary and HONEST filing by the taxpayers. There are literally thousands of US citizens who for one reason or another refuse to file returns. Only a small percentage of these folks are hassled. You have to be depriving the government of quite a bit of "Its fair share" before they come looking for you.
Who do you support for President and why?
I know for a fact that tychecat is a "yellow dog democrat" and a feminist.
while experience is a huge part of the political entity, i think we must also consider and weigh the average person's view. most of us look at politics and see a grid lock. If a certain politician emphasizes change, it's because the average joe wants to see a new philosophy and attempt made at our convoluted system. People want to see, and believe in, a candidate that has a seemingly out of the box approach at running our country. In this light, it's easy to see why many primary goers are valueing a will to change over experience. While someone like Clinton or Mccain may make a better administrative head, alot of individuals see Obama as the kind of person with the greater of two goods. change over experience. Keeping in mind that logic isn't always a strong point for politics, we also can observe tendancies to vote in favor of the candidate who embodies the thing we want most in our nation today. During bush's second run, he was billed as the candidate of strength and security in a time of need. B. Clinton was the fixer of the economy (it's the economy stupid). right now people are sick of playing the rich white guy game, and want to see our country go in the direction of its people's will. This means SERIOUS change. Frankly, it's easy to see that in him and not the others. Personally I'm an independent, and will vote as such- but there's only so much a person can learn about the system before it becomes technicalities and doesn't matter. If an inexperienced candidate wins, then its what the people want- so give it to 'em.
Unfortunately, QS is probably right. Once again the electorate has been taken in by a couple of glib talking, inexperienced demagogues.
It is perfectly all right for a candidate to sum up their campaign in a over-simplified slogan - it's the American way - but when we are lucky there is some substance behind the trite slogan.
It looks like the Republicans have eschewed their glib talker for an experienced, though rather crusty candidate who promises to continue our present unpopular course. The Democrats seem so enamored by the concept of change that they will follow it wherever it goes, even though the candidate of change has little experience in government and what he has had is spectacularly unimpressive.
*and the american people go BAAAAA BAAAAAAHHHHHH*
i kid i kid- but Tychecat, you are right- political experience is necessary in a system as horribly twisted as ours- my only concern with Clinton would be- does she have too much of a negative view from other senators/representatives/party insiders (GOP and Dem) to make a change as a prez?
well said, Uncle.
Obama on NAFTA and WTO: "The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the Administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of on behalf of workers and communities. If we had a shift in orientation in terms of who are we negotiating for, then I think you'd see some different outcomes."
We would like to thank you yet again for the gorgeous ideas you gave Janet when preparing her own post-graduate research and also, most importantly, regarding providing many of the ideas in a single blog post. If we had known of your web page a year ago, we may have been saved the nonessential measures we were selecting. Thanks to you.