Opinion: Are politicians too rich to understand us?

[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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by August

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!

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by krashkart

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

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

[August]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

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

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

Originally Posted by August

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.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.