The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    a dude named steevo's picture

    My First (dag) Blog

    By a dude named steevo on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:43pm |

    Just checking out the site and seeing if I am able to post here.

     

    Had an interesting conversation with someone yesterday regarding politicians.  This wise gentleman said he didn't think honest politicians could ever be elected, and we only elect people that lie to us.  Therefore, is democracy doomed?

    Comments

    It is indeed doomed, but only for so long as such "wise gentlemen" accept the meme of the corrupt politician as common wisdom.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:29am

    I sense I need to perhaps expound on my flip answer, above.

    What I mean to say is that we will have nothing but corrupt politicians for so long as we allow it. It is frustrating to see it reported in the media - time after time - that we cannot achieve a legislative objective because the lobbyists won't allow it. Single Payer Healthcare? Impossible! Take it right off the table at the outset, because the Health Insurance lobbyists won't allow it.

    Financial reform? Be happy with what you got, even though it's written by the Wall Street bankers. The banking industry lobbyists simply wouldn't abide any real reforms, so we settle for what we can get

    Time after time, this meme about the control of corporate money and the way it limits democracy is offered as "common wisdom," as a pragmatic reality of doing business in Washington. Obama can be excused for failing to push for a public option, for example, despite the fact it was overwhemingly popular among the electorate. "Golly, don't you see?" the apologists cluck. "His hands were tied. He couldn't expect to get it past the whores like Lieberman who have been paid to obstruct such a measure."

    It somehow never occurs to the media - or the electorate - to question the ethics of the whores like Lieberman (and Conrad, and Lincoln, and Landrieux, and Baucus, and...) who line up to do the lobbyists bidding. It's simply the way Washington works!


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 8:17am

    Welcome, steevo. Dishonest leadership is the human condition. The only advantage to democracy is that you can at least vote the bastards out every once in awhile.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:43am

    I'm one of those rare optimists who hopes that someday we can have and elect honest politictians.  The people, however, need to be honest, too.  Far too many seem to not even know that they are lying to themselves. 

    Either way, good to see you posting again, Steevo. 


    by LisB on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 1:04am

    I think it's more accurate to say that only dishonest people - or people with less than honorable inent - are motivated to pursue power over their fellows by entering politics.

    It's not so much that we won't vote for an honest politician, it's that we are never given the chance.


    by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 6:03am

    Here in Wisconsin, I would say the reality of the Feingold Senate race runs headlong into your premise about voting for honest politicians. And the voters fail miserably in this regard.

    Feingold hasn't changed a whit in terms of his politics since his earliest days, yet he's been reelected time after time. It cannot therefore be argued that his politics lay outside the norm for what is deemed "acceptable" by the electorate.

    He also stands as perhaps the prime example of a politician who cannot be bought. There is simply not a whiff of pay-to-play about the man.

    It would therefore stand to reason that he would remain highly popular within an electorate that truly valued a non-corrupt politician, especially given the den of thieves that Washington has become.

    The polls argue otherwise.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 8:04am

    Agreed on Feingold and a couple of others here and there. I'm not willing to accept that two or three outliers in an institution of more than 500 individuals necessary negates my underlying premise.

    More importantly, I think by and large the American electorate views things generally along the same lines as I present here. Polls certainly support this assertion. In my experience most voters who aren't political junkies don't have a clue about the details of their representative's vote over time. They are reactive to current situations.

    If this is an accurate perception, than Feingold is starting out with the presumption of ill intent to a large cross-section of the electorate based on how they view politicians in general and partisans in specific. It probably doesn't help him much that he has been pretty well known for supporting Health Care Reform long before the crap bill they finally passed came along. I don't think Democrats fathom just how unpopular that really was - nobody in America wanted the solution they passed aside from the mega-corps. Ironically, being an advocate for real reform kind of leaves Feingold holding the bag for Lincoln, Baucus and Nelson who got in, screwed up HCR and got out without necessarily being identified as HCR advocates. They screwed up his long-held goals and then hung responsibility around his neck.

    You make good points, but I don't think Feingold can necessarily be used as a bellwether to draw the conclusion you do.

     


    by kgb999 on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 11:23pm

    I'm new also new and appreciate your question. I ask your forebearance to rearrange the questiion: Does the survival of a democracy depend upon electing honest politicians. I don't think there are absolutes. I think honesty is a character trait and since human nature doesn't change and we have lived through many phases of our democracy, my guess is that the band width of honesty in politicans of all stripes hasn't changed all that much. In that case we noe need politicians within a certain band width of honesty which we perceive as tolerable, and who support our view of democracy, which in my case is a more level economic playing field. Closely allied with honesty, or maybe it's one in the same, is doing what you say you're going to do. The problem I'm having with this election is that my guy has compromised to too great a degree. Is that a lack of honesty? I honestly don't know. 


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:24pm

    Wow, sorry I missed the conversation, but thanks for the great insights.  I think if Senator Feingold loses I will lose a little bit of hope in humanity.


    by a dude named steevo on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:27pm