politicians: are they all bad?

Sometimes I get real cynical. In my more moody moments, I get irrational, and start thinking worst case scenarios about our political systems. I think “Those politicians, they’re all just a bunch of power hungry psychopathic geniuses, and their only craft is fooling people into thinking we need them.”

That’s during my less-than-better moments. In my more optimistic moments, I think of our political arena more like a pool of different species. In an Darwinian context, the more rife with life a certain environment, the more diversity in species there will be. This might be true of political environments as well. Each politician has different methods by which he/she survives, and more importantly, different motives. So just as surely as there are some power hungry psychopaths in office, there’s also just as many noble and virtuous defenders of the good. There’s just as many politicians who are serving their own interests as there are those who feel passionate about serving the common good of the community. Together, they balance our system out and keep it going.

Which of these views do you think is more accurate?

Check this out man. 4th one down.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewto … highlight=

Well it only makes sense that an honest/moral person could not make it as a leader/politician. Smears that article goes nowhere except to direct you to purchase a book.

Elected officials use other peoples money, they use other people to get ahead in their job. There are many reasons why a leader can not be truly uncorrupted.

I have often wondered why no country has ever designed a draft to choose leaders. Leaders either conquer, enheiret or get elected by farce or by people through illusions. Would it not be a better thing to force a person to take control? If someone wants, control chuck them to the wayside. I would enjoy seeing how a reluctant leader does.

Actually, Athenian democracy employed election by lot. Given what a disaster that turned out to be, no one has really bothered to repeat it.

The thing with politicians is that in a democratic republican system, in order to get elected you have to be a self-preening egomaniac. The way the election system works, it simply forces that. Given that they are all egomaniacs, our politicians often have remarkably similar vices that are easy for various vested interests to exploit. This leads to a situation where they forget why they are in office (to serve) and instead the holding of the office itself becomes a self-fulfilling purpose. Now what happens is that the election cycle becomes the primary focus and the election cycle is where money from the various vested interest groups is most important.

The situation isn’t helped by the fact that one of the parties in America doesn’t think that the politicians are there to serve at all, since their ideology states that they can’t.

You’re probably right. In my OP, I present two opposite extremes (it’s unfortunate that “they’re all good” doesn’t even register on the spectrum :imp: ). But what about this middle-of-the-road perspective:

OK, so “moral” politicians don’t readily survive in politics. But can’t there be a substantial diversity of motives? Obviously there will be great many who are motivated by power and wealth, but there are probably a few who are motivated by the ideals their own society hold dear (like justice, democracy, liberty, etc.). Does holding these ideals and pursuing them in politics necessarily impede a fully self-interested approach? Remember that to be self-interested is one thing, for that interest to be satisfied only by power and wealth is another.

Time also plays a factor. Here is a little morality play for you: In Madison Wisconsin a man was elected mayor at the height of the Vietnam War. To give you an idea as to this man’s political leanings, he would wave the North Vietnamese flag from the window of his office in the state capitol. Hardcore lefty.

He did a lot of good things for the city, at first, and remained true to his ideals and principles. Because of this he was a very popular mayor and routinely won re-election quite easily. However, because he was the power in Madison, it was easy for business interests to get to know him. Sure, they didn’t bribe him, but they always made a point to invite him out to lunch at fancy restaurants and to pick up the tab for him, just as friends do. Nothing wrong with colleagues helping each other out, right? Since he was talking with these people on such a regular basis, his politics slowly shifted more and more to the right. It wasn’t that he was consciously in the pocket of big business, but most of his friends were now in big business and he couldn’t help but see their side of the story.

Of course, by then he had such a machine going that deposing him was nearly impossible. So he began his march slowly to the right and was unchallenged for a long time. Eventually a good lefty rose up and said what everybody had known but been unwilling to talk about – that the mayor was now effectively a republican. Or at least a pro-business democrat. He waged a good campaign and won.

But time and special interests taking advantage of innate faults that are enriched in the political profession are deadly things. Keep that in mind and look at the re-election rate of members of the House and Senate.

Sorry about that link. If you want that article I can email it to you.

Actually, they elected their generals…

Athenian Democracy failed for a different and very important reason. They refused to respect their Consitution. In moments of crisis and peril, this proved to be their undoing.

Both Rome and Athens served as models for the US Constitution. Athens as an example where Constitutional Change could be accomplished in one heated moment of passion, and Rome, where a determined minority could permenently block needed change.

Today of course, wee cannot have the direct Democracy practiced in Athens. But who knows? Perhaps the Internet will eventually make this possible.

Personally, I believe that politicians simply reflect the general population. They are no better and worse than we are.

There are many men and woman in politics who I respect, and many I detest. Such is life… :frowning:

Dave

politicians: are they all bad? No, but a vast majority are. I wouldn’t mind if they all were dead. Yeah some innocent politicians would be dead too, but it would be a good thing overall.

So then? Would you be the one to replace them? Should I replace them? :smiley:

Dave

Philosophers should replace them, so in a way, yes.

Philosopher Kings, eh? Well… let’s give democracy a try first. If that doesn’t work, then we’ll elect a Philosopher King. :laughing:

I seem to notice some disagreements amongst philosophers. Indeed, they pretty much reflect the disagreements I see in society as a whole.

But then again, who is a philosopher?

One reading of the Republic was enough for me to swear off philosophers as a new and better rulling elite… :unamused:

Dave

Yeah, I suppose a minipulative lawyer or an army general should rule instead. They will always do better than a thinker.

Most politicians are humans and have agendas, whether he’s a good politician is judged on a lot of factors. Some of the most horrible decisions that politicians make (morally and consequence wise) are decisions that they are tied to make. No American politician is going to win votes talking about how stem-cell resistance needs to stop, the problem with politicians is that they have to pander to the masses who often-times hold questionable values.

Still some politicians are better than others, some have a real concern in helping education, welfare, the health-system, and whatever else.