Why (some of us) hate politicians.

[library_max]

I wonder how many DUers realize that the antipathy and contempt toward politicians and political professionals that we hear so often is a Republican meme - more specifically, a corporatist meme?

Moneyed interests have always been powerful, but modern corporations have almost unlimited power. The few, unsteady checks on corporate power come from certain readily-identifiable professions: politicians, lawyers, and journalists.

So it should come as no great surprise that vilification of politicians, lawyers, and journalists has become increasingly commonplace in American culture. Isn't "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" supposed to be one of the big three lies, along with "The check is in the mail," and "Of course I'll respect you in the morning"? And I suppose anyone knows at least three or four lawyer jokes ("Why do they bury dead lawyers at a depth of 20 feet? Because, deep down, they're really nice guys").

Vilification of journalists has fallen off of late, now that the media is mostly bought and paid for. Vilification of academia fell off years ago for the same reason, but it's on the rise again as more independent voices are being heard from that sector.

Still, academics have very limited ability to check corporate power. Politicians do through laws and regulations, and lawyers do through lawsuits. Tort reform is of course the weapon of choice for stifling lawyers, but a strong cultural bias of contempt toward the profession can only make that victory easier.

But why are we on the left using our enemies' sneers to attack our friends and allies? Aren't we the ones who believe that government and the law can do good things for people? Don't we want those checks on corporate power, and don't we want them to be as strong as possible? And for politicians, strong means getting elected and reelected without being put through an ideological meat-grinder, among other things.

The same applies to the strategists, pollsters, and other pros that politicians need to get elected and reelected. Sure, sometimes issues near and dear to our hearts get pushed to a back burner because the pros think they won't fly, but the pros are pros because they tend to be right about that sort of thing. Are we so determined to be ideologically pure that we are prepared to hand over the power and machinery of government entirely to the corporations and their Republican lackeys?

Sure, there are some execrable politicians (a certain President with a strong resemblance to a chimp springs to mind), and some unethical lawyers. But when we condemn them as a class, we are merely carrying water for our foes.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. very good point

we need to come up with more CEO jokes.

[markbark]

2. My Favourite CEO Joke

A man flying in a hot air balloon realizes he is lost. He reduces his altitude and spots a man in a field down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts, "Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?"


The man below says, "Yes, you're in a hot air balloon, about 30 feet above this field."


"You must be an engineer," says the balloonist.


"I am. How did you know?"


"Everything you told me is technically correct, but it's of no use to anyone."


The man below says, "You must be an executive."


"I am. But how did you know?"


"You don't know where you are, or where you're going, but you expect me to be able to help. You're in the same position you were before we met, but now it's my fault."


I used to not be able to spell "engineer" and now I are one!"

--MAB

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. *lol*

good one!
:evilgrin:

[tom_paine]

4. Good points all

:kick:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. "Government" is a GOP code word

Republicans love big government, as their record of big government and record deficits show clearly. When they say they hate "government" that's a code word for democracy.

The few honest Republicans left will willingly admit they hate democracy.

[library_max]

6. Oh come on!

Honest Republicans? Where in Tophet did you find honest Republicans?

[shance]

7. Its not about hating the politicians, but about hating the system

that creates an unhealthy and corrupt system, without much accountability.

[library_max]

8. What system do you mean, specifically?

n/t

[Upfront]

9. Max

You tell it like it is, thank you.

[library_max]

12. Thanks.

[IrateCitizen]

10. I disagree wholeheartedly with the thrust of your argument

which is as follows...

The same applies to the strategists, pollsters, and other pros that politicians need to get elected and reelected. Sure, sometimes issues near and dear to our hearts get pushed to a back burner because the pros think they won't fly, but the pros are pros because they tend to be right about that sort of thing. Are we so determined to be ideologically pure that we are prepared to hand over the power and machinery of government entirely to the corporations and their Republican lackeys?

The pros are pros, at least in the case of the "insiders", because they are servants to power, plain and simple. Just the same as most of the politicians from BOTH sides of the aisle are. Going against the insiders who have no clue as to what life is like for the average working American has nothing to do with ideological purity as it does with trying to come up with solutions to their concerns.

These "insiders" have been complicit in turning over "the power and machinery of government entirely to the corporations" for quite some time now. Why? Because, in most instances, they benefit. They never have to look into the eyes of the person whose blue collar job just got shipped to China because the corporation that bought out his small factory can get product made there and shipped back for 1/3 the cost that it takes to pay him.

I entirely reject your basic premise, which was summed up in the paragraph I cited above. The rest is just window dressing.

[library_max]

11. IMHO you missed the point.

This is a big country. Somebody is going to run things. That somebody is not going to be "the person whose blue collar job just got shipped to China." Sorry.

In any enterprise, a comparatively small number of people run the show. That's just the way things work. The question is, would you rather have those people be politicians who are at least nominally responsible to blue-collar people, or CEOs who aren't responsible at all.

The CEOs are really hoping that they can get you mad enough at politicians to not care, or to hamstring the politicians who have a chance to win and who aren't completely in their pocket. Because if politics is a slaughterhouse, then the CEOs win by default. They don't need your consent or mine to run things - they control the money.

You can't reasonably expect the guys at the top to hobnob with proles on a daily basis. This country is just too damned big for citizen government. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is just a movie.

[IrateCitizen]

13. I never said I expected an all-out grassroots effort...

What I said is that I expected at least a portion of the party's energy devoted to a grassroots effort.

As it stands right now, we don't even have that in most instances.

We already have one party representing the views of CEO's. Why on earth do you want another? Because as long as they have to rely on CEO's for campaign contributions to finance campaigns that are growing exponentially more expensive with each passing cycle, that is what you will have.

In any enterprise, a comparatively small number of people run the show. That's just the way things work.

That is true. But if you want these people to honestly be able to respond to the problems faced by those you also want them to at least nominally represent, they have to be able to UNDERSTAND their concerns. Such understanding does not come through only a series of polls. Understanding comes from actually LISTENING to them. And that involves interacting with the "proles".

Sadly, I don't think that this is something that you and I will ever agree upon. In fact, your statements do little more than confirm for many activists such as myself that there is no hope in working through politics for change, because your voice will not be heard anyway, so the best thing is just to disengage from the process and take the fight to the streets.

But with activists gone, I wonder who's going to hand out all the flyers and go door-to-door? Or does that even matter anymore? Have we reached the point where politics is ONLY about 30-second commercials and vague statements that shamelessly appeal to people's more basal instincts? If we have, then stop the bus because I want OFF!

[library_max]

14. T'was ever thus.

What you're describing is simply politics at the national level. Thirty-second commercials and vague statements appealing to people's baser instincts - yup, that's politics all right. And it has always been that way, give or take technology. Look at the Lincoln-Douglas debates for example - plenty of appeals to baser instincts there. And do you think that FDR and LBJ and had a lot of friends who were coal miners or grape pickers or stevedores? That they spent a lot of time at truck stops or the pick n' pay?

And yet, there's been amazing progress in this country due to politics. Slavery was abolished. Jim Crow was abolished. The New Deal, the Great Society, I could go on and on. And all of this was done by imperfect professional politicians who spent most of their time in Washington and concerned themselves with strategies and polls or the equivalents of their day - concerned themselves with getting elected and reelected as a practical matter.

But of course we need activists and grassroots support. The mistake is in thinking that the grassroots and the activists lead and the candidates follow, when it has to be the other way around. We have to pick a side. We have to push for what we can get, and not "take it to the streets" because we can't get everything we want. Clinton wasn't everything we hoped for by a long shot, but after Bush I think we can agree that another Clinton would be eminently worth our support, right?

[IrateCitizen]

15. Now here's where you're completely losing it

And yet, there's been amazing progress in this country due to politics. Slavery was abolished. Jim Crow was abolished. The New Deal, the Great Society, I could go on and on. And all of this was done by imperfect professional politicians who spent most of their time in Washington and concerned themselves with strategies and polls or the equivalents of their day - concerned themselves with getting elected and reelected as a practical matter.

All of this was accomplished not by politicians, but in spite of them. Do yourself a HUGE favor, and read Howard Zinn's masterpiece, A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present. I'm confident that you'll find that what you are describing above is nothing more than a myth perpetuated upon the American public to keep us believing that all great change comes from "great men on high" -- when, in fact, all great change is grounded in decades of struggle carried out by "regular people".

All of those things that you mentioned above -- they weren't "given" to us. They were FOUGHT for, dammit! What do you think, that the 8-hour workday and weekends off were just blessings that came down from politicians on high? That thousands of labor activists weren't maimed and killed through the years, mostly by police or national guard troops acting on behalf of the politicians who worked on behalf of the industrialists, just weren't part of the picture? The change never would have occured without them!

But of course we need activists and grassroots support. The mistake is in thinking that the grassroots and the activists lead and the candidates follow, when it has to be the other way around.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Politicians do little more than reflect the status quo. It has ALWAYS been up to the grassroots activists to work for change, to shift public opinion to the point that the politicians can no longer support immoral policies and still get elected. I'm not even talking about "party activists" here -- I'm talking about the activists who put their lives on the line to fight for meaningful change.

We have to pick a side. We have to push for what we can get, and not "take it to the streets" because we can't get everything we want.

Apparently based on the rest of your response you have no idea what I mean by "taking it to the streets." All I can tell you is to read the Zinn book. As Matt Damon said in Good Will Hunting, "It'll knock you on your ass."

Clinton wasn't everything we hoped for by a long shot, but after Bush I think we can agree that another Clinton would be eminently worth our support, right?

Right now, I'd vote for my neighbor's cat over Bush. But that doesn't change the fact that we need to find somebody who is willing to do more than simply slow the car down from 100 mph to 25 mph as it still rushes toward the edge of a cliff....

ON EDIT:
Ever hear of Eugene Debs? Bill Haywood? Emma Goldman? The Haymarket Martyrs? The Catonsville Nine? I could go on and on, but if you're not overly familiar with not only who these people were, but what they stood for -- you're missing out on a VITAL piece of the puzzle where American history, and the struggle for change is concerned.

[library_max]

16. We're just looking at the same things from different angles.

But I was talking about politics and politicians and why we've got to stop hating them for being professionals and for consulting pollsters and strategists and for wanting to get elected and reelected. We have to pick a side (a real side that can win) and support the politicians on that side.

I have the Zinn book already, haven't got around to reading it yet. But I'm not looking forward to it if the premise is that politics and politicians don't matter. Did grassroots activists write the Emancipation Proclamation or the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments? Did they write the decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, or appoint the justices who did? Did they write and pass the New Deal and Great Society legislation?

Sure, the activists matter. Sure, the ideas often come from the grassroots. But THEY WON'T MATTER if we don't have people in office who hear and care! If we hand politics over to the Republicans because we have a distaste for polls and all the other real stuff of campaigning, what we do at the grassroots won't matter. Government won't care, the media won't care. You think "the people" can beat the U.S. military in a revolution? If we're going to win, we have to win in the political arena. Otherwise, we are just talking to ourselves.

Oh, and yes, I know who Eugene V. Debs was. He ran for President in 1908, 1912, and 1920, and got 2.8%, 6%, and 3.4% of the popular vote, respectively.

[IrateCitizen]

17. I never said that they "don't matter"

And I've also made it clear numerous times what side I'm on when it comes to electoral politics. The side of the Democratic Party, simply because I realize that it is, without a doubt, the only vehicle we have right now through which to affect ANY kind of change. But, at the same time, I don't kid myself as to their innate resistance to change either.

As for the Zinn book, just do yourself a HUGE favor and READ it. It should be required reading for every single American over 16 years of age, IMHO. You can make your own conclusions on what it's trying to tell you, when all it really does is present US history from a point of view not much discussed in schools.

As for Eugene Debs, if all you are willing to cite about him is the fact that he ran for President several times on the Socialist Party ticket, you're only citing a very minor part of who he was and his importance to the burgeoning American Labor Movement. He was far, far more than a Presidential candidate. IMHO, he should be held up as an influential figure in American history rather than left undiscussed in many circles.