Page 1 of 1 [ 5 posts ] 

icyfire4w5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 660

16 Sep 2012, 2:00 am

Warning: Long story. You may interpret this post as a rant if you wish.
Disclaimer: I can't name any names here because I don't know whether the First Amendment applies to the Internet or not. By the way, I'm not American.

I will reach my country's legal voting age next year. My current special interest revolves around politicians. (Voting is compulsory in my country, so I hope that when it is my turn to vote, I can make a well-informed decision instead of casting a spoilt vote.) I begin to read up on politicians, especially popular ones. I define a popular politician as a politician who garners far more positive opinions than negative opinions. Most voters revere these politicians. I have heard such a statement repeated numerous times in different guises--"Our country can't survive without Politician So-and-so." I notice that all over the world, generally speaking, popular politicians are chummy with one another. I dare say that "Politicians of the same popularity flock together."

I have already given up on discussing politics with certain people around me either because they are uninterested in politicians or because they are like, "If you have so much to complain about politicians, why don't you yourself go join politics? Those politicians that you complain about have done much good for their countrymen. Blahblahblah..."

Call me naive, but I have always held the opinion that politicians should serve as their countrymen's role models. Since every decision that a politician makes will affect his or her country's future, a politician should possess the moral compass to steer his or her country in the right direction. I assume that popular politicians are admired for their virtues. I am disappointed when my research shows that many popular politicians aren't that virtuous after all. I am even more disappointed when some popular politicians admit their dirty tactics out loud when they reflect upon their past. To cut a long story short, many of these popular politicians are guilty of relational aggression. Here are some tactics that they have used... (I have changed some details to protect the politicians' identities.)

1. Popular Politician was a mere newbie in politics, so he allied himself with a veteran politician. Voters supported Popular Politician because of his own competence and also because some of the veteran politician's popularity had rubbed off onto him. Once Popular Politician was sure that his position was secure, he got rid of the veteran politician. If lucky, Popular Politician would assign the veteran politician a figurehead position in the government. If unlucky, Popular Politician would expel the veteran politician or imprison the veteran politician or "advise" the veteran politician to settle overseas.

2. The politician in power then was so unpopular that politicians and voters alike wished that he would quit politics as soon as possible. (Let us call this politician "Bob".) Popular Politician was one of the many politicians in Bob's party who were eager to take over Bob's position. Unlike other politicians who insulted Bob whenever they could, Popular Politician emphasized that he opposed Bob's policies but not Bob himself. He frequently wined and dined with Bob. Out of gratitude to Popular Politician, Bob did his best to ensure that Popular Politician could ascend to power as smoothly as possible. In the end, it was Popular Politician who succeeded Bob, not any of those politicians who bayed for Bob's blood non-stop.

3. Popular Politician was locked in a power struggle with Up-and-Coming Politician, so Popular Politician circulated rumors about Up-and-Coming Politician's personal life until voters had no clue whether Up-and-Coming Politician was guilty or innocent.

4. Popular Politician feared that Party A would oust him through a hostile takeover of Popular Politician's Party, so he sought a coalition with Party B since Party B was Party A's most powerful rival. Party B agreed to the coalition reluctantly. When Popular Politician was confident that Party A no longer posed any threat to his party, he was eager to break away from the coalition. He was sick of being under Party B's control all the time. Popular Politician's Party started opposing Party B on various issues. Party B's leader could no longer tolerate Popular Politician. He announced that he would dissolve the coalition, leaving Popular Politician's Party to fend for itself. On the day of the announcement, Party B's leader was all smiles, but Popular Politician started crying like a child. Even Popular Politician's colleagues were shocked. Popular Politician cried that he had already done his best to ensure that the coalition would work. Voters blamed Party B's leader for dissolving the coalition, affecting Party B's reputation.


What do you think of the popular politicians in your country?



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,508
Location: x

16 Sep 2012, 10:37 am

icyfire4w5 wrote:
Call me naive, but I have always held the opinion that politicians should serve as their countrymen's role models. Since every decision that a politician makes will affect his or her country's future, a politician should possess the moral compass to steer his or her country in the right direction. I assume that popular politicians are admired for their virtues. I am disappointed when my research shows that many popular politicians aren't that virtuous after all. I am even more disappointed when some popular politicians admit their dirty tactics out loud when they reflect upon their past. ]


I have not heard people admiring politicians for their virtues, either in conversations or in writing (blogs or articles). What seems far more common is that people admire the politician's ability to create a narrative of a future the voter would like to inhabit. Virtue is irrelevent to that goal. Politicians are judged mainly for two things, in my experience:

1)how appealing or abhorrant the narrative they create is

2)how well they can (or did, if it's re-election) bring the narrative into reality

In sum, what people do is pick the politician who creates a narrative that they agree with and who also seems to have the ability to make that narrative a reality. Morals or virtue only come into it peripherally when it is revealed that the politician's personal life is in complete violation of the narrative they have created.



HPFanfictionReader
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 12

16 Sep 2012, 12:42 pm

Nice smile
Simple understandable message
Lack of competant alternatives



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

16 Sep 2012, 1:05 pm

HPFanfictionReader wrote:
Nice smile
Simple understandable message
Lack of competant alternatives


In the case of male politicians a well defined chin is required. The chin of a leader.

Woman politicians can be more rounded.

ruveyn



Empathy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,548
Location: Sovereign Nation & Commonwealth

15 May 2016, 6:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:

In the case of male politicians a well defined chin is required. The chin of a leader.

Woman politicians can be more rounded.

ruveyn


In the case of Maggie Thatcher, I believe it was a cast iron jaw. :roll: