Opinion: Are politicians too rich to understand us?

[Ducimus]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/opinion/stanley-money-in-politics/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


In this age of austerity, America is run by men with wealth that could have leapt from the pages of "The Great Gatsby."

[Takeda Shingen]

When did the civilian legislator ever have a day? Our founding fathers were the wealthy and elite of society. Virtually every elected official since that time has been the same. The illusion of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was simply that; an illusion. The more I think of it, the 'good old days' that many pine about, whenever they may have been, were probably a lot like today. Humanity is incapable of improving his condition.

[Ducimus]

Oh just read the article if your inclined. I thought it was a good read. I beleive the point is, none of these bastards we elect, at any level, regardless of party, have a clue as to what the everyday American thinks, needs, or wants. Their off in their own bubble somewhere in the stratosphere. George Carliln was right, They do not care. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi6XV8yBFoU)

[mookiemookie]

The only person with a chance of being elected is someone who can spend piles of money. That pretty much rules out any everyday Joe who would have a clue about things that everyday people care about.

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh just read the article if your inclined. I thought it was a good read. I beleive the point is, none of these bastards we elect, at any level, regardless of party, have a clue as to what the everyday American thinks, needs, or wants. Their off in their own bubble somewhere in the stratosphere. George Carliln was right, They do not care. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi6XV8yBFoU)

I did read the arcticle, Ducimus. Did you think that I was just replying off the cuff? Do you see me as impulsive?

My point is that this had always been the case. Today is no different than 50 years ago. From 100 years ago. From 1000 years ago. It is the rich and powerful that decide the fates of many. As it has been, as it is, and as it has always been. To reform humanity is to run his head into the concrete wall. You will neither succeed nor feel well enough to continue.

[Ducimus]

*sigh* yeah i guess. Money is power, right?

Just when i couldn't get more depressed about the state of our government. "Government of the people, for the people, by the people." What a bunch of BS. And some people I know bitch at me when i tell them I don't bother to vote. This is PRECISELY why i don't. It does not matter if i do, or if i don't, end result will always, be the same.

[the_tyrant]

Thing is, do you really think the "average joe" can run a country?

I tend to run when politicians claim to be "just like me"

do you trust me to run a country?

[Ducimus]

Thing is, do you really think the "average joe" can run a country?

I tend to run when politicians claim to be "just like me"

do you trust me to run a country?


Thing is, given the current state of the US, the rich lawyers can't run it for crap either. Maybe i should give more credence to this whole doomsday prepping thing. :shifty:

[MGR1]

Do politicians understand Joe Public?

No. They come from too narrow a social strata for that to be the case and that's true everywhere.

If your not part of the club, you don't get in, so change is nigh impossible.

Mike.

[Sailor Steve]

This is PRECISELY why i don't. It does not matter if i do, or if i don't, end result will always, be the same.
Of course there are those who will tell you that if you don't vote you have no right to complain. I always reply that as long as they don't have a box labeled "None Of The Above" I can complain.

But something in the way you wrote that made me think. If you don't vote you can't complain that it was the other guy's fault. Of course you have it easier as well. No matter who gets elected you get to say "Don't look at me. I didn't vote for him!"
:rotfl2:

[Ducimus]

Of course there are those who will tell you that if you don't vote you have no right to complain. I always reply that as long as they don't have a box labeled "None Of The Above" I can complain.

But something in the way you wrote that made me think. If you don't vote you can't complain that it was the other guy's fault. Of course you have it easier as well. No matter who gets elected you get to say "Don't look at me. I didn't vote for him!"
:rotfl2:


I quote George Carlin entirely too much, but here goes anyway.

I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around; they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.


So long as no matter who you vote for, it ends up a mess and things never change, that bit from Carlin will hold true. When that is no longer the case, you'll find me voting again.

[Sailor Steve]

I quote George Carlin entirely too much, but here goes anyway.
That's a good one!

So long as no matter who you vote for, it ends up a mess and things never change, that bit from Carlin will hold true. When that is no longer the case, you'll find me voting again.
No argument from me. I was just having a laugh myself. :sunny:

[Ducimus]

Yeah i'm having a "moment" with this thread. Venting my frustration in some incomprehensible form.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yeah i'm having a "moment" with this thread. Venting my frustration in some incomprehensible form.

I understand.

People have become too invested in party. They become too attached to the keywords of 'liberty', 'freedom' and 'individualism'. They are all to eager to belong; to forget the global definition of these things. They prefer what I like to call the 'NFL experience' of politics. They like to root against the bad guys in a white and black world. They fail to see that when Republicans talk about these things they almost exclusively mean financial matters, and when Democrats talk about these things they almost exclusively mean civic matters. I want both. I want to keep more of my money and I want a gay man to be able to marry his love and be recognized by the state. I consider neither of these to be unreasonable.

The man in the middle seems to be eternally forgotten in the persuit of polemics.

[August]

It's just not true that being wealthy or elite is a requirement for high political office.

Abraham Lincoln was certainly not wealthy or elite, nor was Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson, US Grant, Andrew Johnson, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, James A. Garfield, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover or Bill Clinton and that's just at the presidential level. The further down you go on the government ladder the more humble beginnings you will find.

Sure there tends to be more wealthy people in government but that should not surprise or disappoint anyone though. We want successful people in those positions. They are certainly better suited for the job of running a nation than, say, the folks in this forum, myself included.

I mean could you imagine a President Skybird? He'd have the nation in total anarchy within a week and this is not a slam on him because I would hardly fare any better and ditto for the rest of you too.

[Takeda Shingen]

Certainly the first General of the Army since George Washington, a Rhodes Scholar educated at Oxford and others represent the 'common man' in both the anti-wealth philosophy of Team D and anti-intellectualism of Team R. This sort of plain characterization misses the fundamental point of the corrupion of power, and that man's first instinct will be to forget his roots once presented with such affuence. Look no further than Barack Obama; conspicuously absent from the afforementioned list.

[krashkart]

I mean could you imagine a President Skybird? He'd have the nation in total anarchy within a week and this is not a slam on him because I would hardly fare any better and ditto for the rest of you too.

Good point. But I for one would welcome our new Subsim overlords. With open arms. And a plate heaped with cold cuts. :rock:

[CaptainHaplo]

I mean could you imagine a President Skybird? He'd have the nation in total anarchy within a week and this is not a slam on him because I would hardly fare any better and ditto for the rest of you too.


And this is where the train just hit crazy. Mookie, Aramike, Sailor Steve and a host of others I would trust to run this country better than it is currently run. And that isn't just in reference to Obama. Skybird is disqualified over his citizenship status - sorry Sky! :salute:

Why? 2 reasons.

1) None of them really want the job. This means that if they were to accept the role - they would be doing it out of the primary desire to help this country - not enrich themselves. Sure, some of them I would disagree with on matters of policy - but that focus of governing for the people instead of for themselves and their rich friends - matters.

2) Each one of them has enough adult experience in life to listen to others and not think they know every facet of every problem and thus know every solution - whether it be taxing the rich or getting rid of all taxes.
The ability to accept their own limitations and their own accountability to the governed - would make them a far wiser leader than anything we have had for over 2 decades.

These issues affect BOTH sides - and neither fights "for the common man". Its not a question of who is fighting for you - its a question of which set of policies does more to enhance your own chance of success. THAT is a sad state of affairs.

[Takeda Shingen]

These issues affect BOTH sides - and neither fights "for the common man". Its not a question of who is fighting for you - its a question of which set of policies does more to enhance your own chance of success. THAT is a sad state of affairs.

And therein lies the crux of the argument. I reserve the right to use this quote as a signature.

[u crank]

Good point. But I for one would welcome our new Subsim overlords. With open arms. And a plate heaped with cold cuts. :rock:

You're easy man. Okay, where's the line start. :O:

[August]

Certainly the first General of the Army since George Washington, a Rhodes Scholar educated at Oxford and others represent the 'common man' in both the anti-wealth philosophy of Team D and anti-intellectualism of Team R. This sort of plain characterization misses the fundamental point of the corrupion of power, and that man's first instinct will be to forget his roots once presented with such affuence. Look no further than Barack Obama; conspicuously absent from the afforementioned list.

Conspicuously absent for a reason. The son of a dead traveling salesman and a nurse, that Rhodes Scholar, was not born into wealth, nor did he came from an elite family. That first General of the Army since Washington was a failed drug store clerk. Obama is the son of an Anthroplogist and a Senior foreign government official (finance guy iirc?) and has spent nearly his entire adult life in the shelter of academia. There is no comparison between them.

As for corruption of power it's silly to make such a sweeping generalization like that. What a mans first instinct would be when presented with affluence depends upon his personal character. Some will cave to it and some won't. In any case someone must do the public business.

[Onkel Neal]

It's just not true that being wealthy or elite is a requirement for high political office.

Abraham Lincoln was certainly not wealthy or elite, nor was Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson, US Grant, Andrew Johnson, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, James A. Garfield, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover or Bill Clinton and that's just at the presidential level. The further down you go on the government ladder the more humble beginnings you will find.

Sure there tends to be more wealthy people in government but that should not surprise or disappoint anyone though. We want successful people in those positions. They are certainly better suited for the job of running a nation than, say, the folks in this forum, myself included.



Well said. :)



I wouldn't be too depressed, the system works pretty well. Come on, we have a really good standard of living, the average guy has an auto, a computer, a fishing boat, a big ol TV, and on and on. I know lots of guys who are in great shape, from years of working. It's not perfect, but it's not that bad. The opportunity is there, more than ever.

[Skybird]

It is useless to try to reasonably debate with a devout believer. Reason and devout belief are antagonistic.

A professional politician is a devout believer. His religion is his egoism, his holy book is his agenda for his powercareer, his hope for salvation is more pleasing of his ego, and his messiah is himself.

Go figure.

As I see it, we move backwards in time. Neo-aristocratic oligarchies have been established, they are similiar in form to elites of eras we believed to have died long time ago. Freedom gets hollowed out. Education standards on how to use freedom, drop.

But could entities like the globalised economy, nations the size of the US or China or Russia, bodies like the EU, even be functionally regulated and governed by truely democratic principles? Honestly said, I doub t that, and very strongly.

I'm currently reading regularly some older gentlemen'S works , who all share the disadvantage of that they are already dead. Emerson, Thoreau, Payne, Jefferson. I realise an education standard and a noblesse of character there that would be in desperate need today. But what the wide audioence today is instead focussing on, you easily can check out when switching on the TV or walking down the street with open eyes. Many may be clever in making money and lifting a career. But education in the meaning of "Bildungsdbürgertum" is something different.

We have no inner centre anymore, it seems to me, we are not grounded in ourselves anymore, and fight against the other with even more fanatism for that reason. We balance on our toes to appear bigger, while inside we are so hollow that every breeze already threatens to throw us down.

We increased our instrumental skills. We lost something else in return that is hard to measure and define and called by name. Something inside myself keeps telling me with a silent voice that we accepted a trade that does not work for our well-being.

We have the politicians that we deserve. They are a symptom of what is not in order with ourselves. The quality that we cannot value and thus do not crave for, we do not deserve at all, because we cannot appreciate it anyway. If we cannot appreciate it, it is wasted on us.

[Takeda Shingen]

I wouldn't be too depressed, the system works pretty well. Come on, we have a really good standard of living, the average guy has an auto, a computer, a fishing boat, a big ol TV, and on and on. I know lots of guys who are in great shape, from years of working. It's not perfect, but it's not that bad. The opportunity is there, more than ever.

We do have these things, and for that I am grateful. I am simply worried about what my girls will have when they grow up. For that, I am not optimistic. Of course, neither was every generation before this. Perhaps it is the impetus of the time that speaks through me, as it has done for others before us.

[Skybird]

I wouldn't be too depressed, the system works pretty well. Come on, we have a really good standard of living, the average guy has an auto, a computer, a fishing boat, a big ol TV, and on and on. I know lots of guys who are in great shape, from years of working. It's not perfect, but it's not that bad. The opportunity is there, more than ever.
One word to put all that into relation.

Sustainability (Nachhaltigkeit).

I'm a comfort-craving guy, too. I got used to all the goodies, yes. But I know that this way of living is destroying us. Not Earth in general - just us.

[August]

These issues affect BOTH sides - and neither fights "for the common man". Its not a question of who is fighting for you - its a question of which set of policies does more to enhance your own chance of success. THAT is a sad state of affairs.

We'll i'm with you on the lack of both sides commitment to the common man Hap I have to agree to disagree on subsim member suitability as there is not one person in this forum who I would want see as President. They are for the most part very good people but frankly none of them, myself included, have a track record that i'd consider even remotely qualified for the job.

Good intentions alone just aren't enough. Look at US Grant or Jimmy Carter. For high political office, especially the Potus, we need a person who can stand up to constant pressure of enormous proportions. In fact I seriously doubt that anyone, good or evil, could do that job for very long unless they actually wanted to do it.

[JU_88]

Thing is, do you really think the "average joe" can run a country?

Yes, everyone who ever sat in the white house was an average joe at some point in their life... maybe an avarage joe with more money not nessicarily more intelligence.
Presidents are glorified salesmen who interfaces between the little people (who think they put them in charge with ballots) ...and their lobbyists who actually put them in charge with a ton of money.
The 'ton of money' being spent on telling the little people where they can/should cast their ballots of course.

[the_tyrant]

Well here we go, we have reached the perfect catch 22.

Assuming you don't pull high level politicians directly out of school, people who end up being things like presidents and prime ministers are probably at least in their 40s.

Now in the 20 something years of their career if they didn't really distinguish themselves, than that would mean they are "just like us", average Joes.
Running a country is not an average job, average does not cut it.

On the other hand, if the candidate has had an extremely successful career, made truckloads of money, it can be said that the candidate is "out of touch".
Well duh, he is successful!

Isn't this just the perfect paradox......

[Penguin]

When you desire rich and successfull businessmen you could also elect a member of the Mafia - well if this isn't already the case today :03:

Also wealth does not reflect success, right career choices, hard work or anything close to a personality or social skills. You can accumulate wealth by being streamlined and kissing ass or by being totally reckless.

We've had people trying to run our countries like businesses for the past decades, with questionable success:

Dear America, you should be mad as hell about this (http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-america-you-should-be-mad-as-hell-about-this-charts-2012-6?op=1)



Sure there tends to be more wealthy people in government but that should not surprise or disappoint anyone though. We want successful people in those positions. They are certainly better suited for the job of running a nation than, say, the folks in this forum, myself included.


Giving the wide range of professions, skills, experiences and social backgrounds of the people from this board, I honestly think we could.
At least we could ruin the country as well as our current leaders - maybe we could even do better. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

I wouldn't be too depressed, the system works pretty well. Come on, we have a really good standard of living, the average guy has an auto, a computer, a fishing boat, a big ol TV, and on and on. I know lots of guys who are in great shape, from years of working. It's not perfect, but it's not that bad. The opportunity is there, more than ever.

I would agree but would add cease looking at every news outlet you can lay your eyes on for days on end. It will only frustrate, depress and confuse you. It is one thing to be involved. It is entirely different to be engrossed. Enjoy your boat, car, bike, walk, jog, fishing, significant other, beer, large TV and whatever makes you happy. Constant spoon feeding of nothing but dreaded news(that's all the outlets know) will depress the living hell out of you.

[Blood_splat]

Lets see congress is made up of lawyers, judges, and former Goldman and Sachs employees. This really doesn't represent all the professions.

[Agiel7]

Louis-Ferdinand Céline put it quite aptly why I haven't voted in 2008 (the first time I was able to vote), the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election:

"I have always known and understood that the idiots are in a majority."

Also, this dude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj62cs6u_R8

[August]

Also wealth does not reflect success, right career choices, hard work or anything close to a personality or social skills. You can accumulate wealth by being streamlined and kissing ass or by being totally reckless.

While that is true they are also considerably less likely to work, especially in the long term, than regular old hard work and motivation which is how most people gain their wealth.

Giving the wide range of professions, skills, experiences and social backgrounds of the people from this board, I honestly think we could. At least we could ruin the country as well as our current leaders - maybe we could even do better.

And if anyone gets in our way we'll crush them like bugs! Mwahahahaha! :)

[nikimcbee]

I'm going to say no, with the exception of the Kennedys. I would say the career politicians don't understand us (meaning average people).

Are you talking about rich= inherited wealth? Then yes.

If you mean rich = I worked hard to make my money, then no. (there are exceptions though; I'm thinking of zuckerberg or people that all of a sudden, came into a lot of money)

[u crank]

Are politicians too rich to understand us?

I don't think they're to rich to understand us. I think they're to busy getting richer and staying in power to 'care' about anybody else. :yep: