Politcians and hubris

[ShortForBob]

For the politicians we know today, I agree. But there are those who would more accurately be called public servants. Although they, too, are rare.

I've known a few over the years. People who were truly good inside and who would have loved to help make things better for the people. But all of them, and this goes back to the 80s, told me they would never enter politics because corruption was so deep, they would get crushed.

Big money owns almost all the politicians at state and federal levels in the US. And that will not be changed by the occasional public servant being elected. And sweeping change will only happen when the voters have the guts to make it happen.

That's one of the problems with elected public servants, it doesn't help fight corruption, it encourages it. If you have a clean public service, you really don't need politicians , but years of corrupt politicians will eventually corrupt even a merit based public service.

 

[shaggy]

My point is that it is a copout to bitch about 'the party', which is a chaotic, infighting mess regardless of whether you're talking about the GOP or Dems or even Libertarian party. Assuming that they can either 'fix' any problem or that they 'are' the problem is a bad idea.

And Remember, Obama was not groomed, He served what, one term in the senate... He was/is just a carasmatic stand up guy.

 

[Remodel]

I don't think its just politicians..

The Soft Tyranny of Modern Medicine

Compact Magazine, a radical American journal

compactmag.com

View attachment 594855

What's the difference between God and a doctor?




















God doesn't think he is a doctor...

 

[d'ranger]

Can't comment on Canadian politics as it seems too polite but down here I think the problem started with JFK - guy was so charismatic and likeable in person and TV it changed our thinking of what a leader is. FF to Reagan who just made everyone feel good to the point all the bs was ignored and now someone like Biden isn't popular because he is old, methodical and boring. Trump motivates the common clay* of America (at which point the Old Gold chips in).

The firebrands of the Dems are labeled too far left or female - my pick is E Warren and the demand is a fire breathing populist to rally the mobs. slow and steady may win the race but inspires nobody.

*Blazing Saddles in case it wasn't obvious.

 

[Olsonist]

I don't understand how, despite all the evidence and decades of your own observations, you still think parties 'offer candidates' to the public. Every time a party grooms, selects, offers, or otherwise makes our choices for us, that candidate gets smoked, because above all, americans do not like the small of insincerity. You don't have to look much further than Hillary or Jeb! but there are many examples through the ages.

The charisma of the candidate compared to the charisma of the opposing candidate is what wins elections, assuming typical turnout. The abililty of parties, NGOs, PACs, donors, and other stakeholders to fund and operate effective motivational and GOTV efforts is what can change the turnout enough to make winning much more likely, even by a heavily unbalanced electorate.

Candidate recruitment is a thing.

Republicans press Wisconsin congressman to take on Tammy Baldwin

A poll commissioned by the Senate GOP campaign arm found the lawmaker trailing the incumbent by just 1 point.

www.politico.com

Indeed, most candidates are recruited. It's rare that a New Man jumps into an election.

Jeb was a terrible national candidate, true, but his brother W the Stupid was heavily recruited by county chairmen who knew him from the campaigning he had done for his father, H the Ever So Slightly Less Stupid. They one by one made pilgrimage to Austin to drop off checks.

No, Hillary was not recruited nor was she groomed. That's silly. A thoroughly inept candidate, she ineptly lost the popular vote by -3M as inept candidates do. Did the party (Donna Brazile) prefer her? Yes. But that's not recruitment which happens before a candidate even announces.

Out here in CA, 74-yo Steve Garvey is getting recruited to run for Senate because the GOP needs a standard bearer to lose statewide so that their voters turn out for swing district Congressional seats. Recruitment happens but it's behind closed doors.

 

[Steam Flyer]

We all know "offer" actually means "shoved down your throat" but I didn't want my response to be focused on just that phrase, so I opted for a kinder gentler way of saying it.

That's really not true. Both parties have primary elections.

The problem is that primaries only attract voters that are fanatical about something.

 

[Jules]

My point is that it is a copout to bitch about 'the party', which is a chaotic, infighting mess regardless of whether you're talking about the GOP or Dems or even Libertarian party. Assuming that they can either 'fix' any problem or that they 'are' the problem is a bad idea.

I guess you haven't seen my "campaign" to vote out all incumbents until politicians get the message they work for the people.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Candidate recruitment is a thing.

Republicans press Wisconsin congressman to take on Tammy Baldwin

A poll commissioned by the Senate GOP campaign arm found the lawmaker trailing the incumbent by just 1 point.

www.politico.com

Indeed, most candidates are recruited. It's rare that a New Man jumps into an election.

Jeb was a terrible national candidate, true, but his brother W the Stupid was heavily recruited by county chairmen who knew him from the campaigning he had done for his father, H the Ever So Slightly Less Stupid. They one by one made pilgrimage to Austin to drop off checks.

No, Hillary was not recruited nor was she groomed. That's silly. A thoroughly inept candidate, she ineptly lost the popular vote by -3M as inept candidates do. Did the party (Donna Brazile) prefer her? Yes. But that's not recruitment which happens before a candidate even announces.

Out here in CA, 74-yo Steve Garvey is getting recruited to run for Senate because the GOP needs a standard bearer to lose statewide so that their voters turn out for swing district Congressional seats. Recruitment happens but it's behind closed doors.

I never said candidates aren't recruited. They are, at all stages in their adult lives and by a wide range of stakeholders. Passing off responsibility to 'the party' for their shitty candidate 'offerings' ignores all the other people and entities trying to identify and support potentially great candidates and the fact that the strongest candidate is often ignored or worse by the party because of insider relationships, dumb plans, and the sunk cost fallacy. Recruitment is always happening, but it's one small piece of the puzzle.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

I guess you haven't seen my "campaign" to vote out all incumbents until politicians get the message they work for the people.

that's just as dumb as the RWNJs who want to abolish the FBI just to start something new. Chaos and destruction with no likelihood that you'll get anything better.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

primaries only attract voters that are fanatical about something.

In a voluntary voting nation, turnout decides every election.

 

[Jules]

that's just as dumb as the RWNJs who want to abolish the FBI just to start something new. Chaos and destruction with no likelihood that you'll get anything better.

And what do they call doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

 

[SloopJonB]

Maybe genuine public servants know they can't break through the self-serving political corruption and therefore stay out of politics.

This.

What decent, honest person would submit themselves to the bullshit that is heaped on public figures?

It's a bit like Groucho's line about not wanting to belong to any organization that would have him as a member.

 

[SloopJonB]

What's the difference between God and a doctor?

God doesn't think he is a doctor...

Surgeon

 

[Mark_K]

The parties have both turned the nomination process over to populism. This was most definitely not always the case. See the nominations of Garfield and Ike. Didn't even run in the primaries which during their time were but internal party polls, which is unimaginable today. Today we treat them as elections in themselves. This opens the door to demagoguery and so we had a game-show host as POTUS for four years.

This condition also makes the process a media zoo. Few are the people willing to subject not only themselves but their whole fucking family life in the circus. Only a tiny fraction of our best and brightest will toss a hat in that ring and so get only the few who are willing to structure their entire life around surviving the constant shitstorm, or have been so configured by past attempts.

Hubris? Perhaps not as big a factor as some think.

 

[Jules]

That's really not true. Both parties have primary elections.

The problem is that primaries only attract voters that are fanatical about something.

But both parties push their choice and often that's all it takes. We get into a "it's better to take the lesser of the evils and win than to choose the best candidate for the people and possibly lose."

As to primaries, the only reason I vote in them is because I'm fanatical about exercising my right to vote.

 

[Steam Flyer]

But both parties push their choice and often that's all it takes. We get into a "it's better to take the lesser of the evils and win than to choose the best candidate for the people and possibly lose."

As to primaries, the only reason I vote in them is because I'm fanatical about exercising my right to vote.

Well you're making the choice of who the candidates will be.
That is the reason to vote in the primaries. I can't decide if you're unhappy about the "win at all costs" attitude, a bland candidate who will not do anything; or the "ideological fanatic" attitude. Any candidate at all will be too much one or the other.

A lot of time local political organizations are rather small and subject to personality.

 

[Remodel]

Unfortunately - and this is true of both parties - candidates are not chosen for their competence, but rather for their ability to raise money.

 

[Jules]

Well you're making the choice of who the candidates will be.

Not in Florida.

First, it's a closed primary state so you can only vote for people within whatever party you have aligned yourself with.

In Illinois, where I lived for the first 64 years of my life, we were free to vote for whoever you wanted in the primaries. Sometimes I liked I chose candidates from different parties in the primaries. That's a freedom Florida denies their voters.

Next, sometimes there are no choices because only one candidate is running within "your party." That may be due to the rules set by the party, or the candidates quashed by the party, but often the people you'd want to see run don't because the system is so fucked up.

In Illinois I never felt like the choices were limited but in Florida it feels like you are so boxed in there is no freedom to vote for who you want.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Not in Florida.

First, it's a closed primary state so you can only vote for people within whatever party you have aligned yourself with.

In Illinois, where I lived for the first 64 years of my life, we were free to vote for whoever you wanted in the primaries. Sometimes I liked I chose candidates from different parties in the primaries. That's a freedom Florida denies their voters.

Next, sometimes there are no choices because only one candidate is running within "your party." That may be due to the rules set by the party, or the candidates quashed by the party, but often the people you'd want to see run don't because the system is so fucked up.

In Illinois I never felt like the choices were limited but in Florida it feels like you are so boxed in there is no freedom to vote for who you want.

Would be better to not have a vote?

I've only gotten a small look at how the parties work in different states... it is very different, yet there's one big common element: the personalities of the people leading the local caucus/precinct. Sometimes it's just a bossy person who takes on the work of organizing (and it is indeed work) so they can have the pleasure of telling others what to do. Sometimes it's a person with a burning ideological flame. Those are the worst. More of the time, it's just somebody who socialized their way into the group and ended up being handed the reins because those ahead of them aged out or moved (or got elected and went to Washington DC).