Why Are We Kidding Ourselves? All of These Candidates Are Politicians
You could get dizzy from the back-and-forth about who is lying and who is so honest sainthood is in the wings. There are no saints in politics. When there is something of value at stake and more than one person interested in obtaining it, politics is in the mix. When it comes to presidential politics, the stakes are enormous and the only people capable of even reaching the final group are extraordinary street fighters.
That is why no matter how much people carp about Clinton, Obama, or Edwards positioning issues to detract from the competition, you can bet that they're all doing their share. The same is true among Republicans. To think otherwise is to be ignorant of politics or too enamored with one candidate over the others to see the forest for the trees in terms of strategies.
These people are pros. If we don't want their type, we need to find another means of electing presidents. Politicians struggle for power and do so in ways that appeal to what matters to us. They study how we organize concepts in our minds, what we'll accept as evidence and how quickly we'll adopt a theme promulgated by the media if it helps us organize our political thinking or advance the chances of our favored candidate. And that's just for a start.
Astute politicians play with our perceptions to achieve for themselves advantages over their opponents. How many of them have told us about their difficult roots or what "regular" people they are? What does that have to do with today and what they'll do for us tomorrow?
None of the candidates who are still in the race are regular people. It's disingenuous of them to suggest otherwise.
We are the only ones who can keep them from going too far. They are strategists and so we need to become strategy savvy. My friend, Peter Samuelson, has argued that we may have reached a point where the political machines are so well oiled that near ties in competitions are inevitable as each outsmarts the other in turns at a game for which they've become too expert.
"Might it be that the computerized Rovian brains running our candidates' campaigns have created a circular eddy of analysis leading to counter-attack, of thrust leading to parry... and if the pollsters and the Carvilles and the Roves are all using the same software and the same tactics, does the relentless calculus of mass media advertising not virtually guarantee a tie? Any movement away from the middle leads to an equal and opposite advertising barrage, precisely targeted to the shifting demographics of the support-base. That pushback then leads to yet another counterattack that exactly nullifies the shift."
It pays to step back once in a while to recognize the nature of the activity in which we're involved. Otherwise we're like sheep -- the lot of us. We despise those who disagree with us about a candidate even though we actually know little of that person. It's a form of ignorance -- the same kind that delivered George W. Bush into our lives twice.
So what should we do? We should observe and critique -- not like the many MSM "experts" whose lips move but nothing of substance comes out -- but as people who aren't voting for prom king or queen. The next president will need to protect us from the demise of democracy, the economic fall of a great country, and respond to the needs of Americans instead of their own lust for power or unquenchable greed. That calls for opening our eyes and seeing all of them as first and foremost politicians and then deciding, after considerable observation and skepticism, the one among them who is competent, compassionate, and capable of rising above his or her thirst for power to do what's best for us.
See also
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yep, they're mostly the same. Some time ago, most of them asked, "What will it take to become President?" They then started getting the ducks all lined up. Almost all of them did what they had to do to become one of the boys and endear themselves to the right people. They are just like so many corporate ladder climbers.
The question should be, "Why do you want to be President and please skip the for the good of my country rhetoric". "Bush clearly had an agenda. What is your agenda? Is it power? Is it ambition? Is it money? Is it just the natural progression of a career in politics?"
Ask yourself why some of these people want to be President. They are, after all, people and it should be easy to figure out because it's usually very simple.
Well, congratulations, someone finally said it! they are all politicians. They all have the same goals, most of which don't involve service to the people. This usually means that promises mean nothing,and its every man/woman for themselves. The system in our country has proved to be unchangeable! despite promises to the contrary the system remains unchanged ,much the same as it was 25 years ago, unfortunatly some of the names have remained the same.We need to change the system, it has become stuck in the mud of lobbyist interests,and the real reason we elected these people has been forgotten, lets remind them on election day 2008.They will all need to look for a job.(just like the rest of us have)
This is the latest Clinton strategy: We're all the same, we all play dirty. This is there attempt to bring Obama down in the mud with them. It takes a discerning eye to see that he has not stooped to their level.
This is where Hillary's true experience lies, in dirty politics. She is a master and she will be rewarded for her tactics.
This is the only site on the political page that mentions the Edwards name. Why didn't the two democratic Senators fly back briefly and vote concerning the FISA bill? No one is doing anything to stop bush from pushing through his agenda, today he wants to end the family medical leave bill. I fear McCain is going to get everyone fired up in favor for the war. They'll give us all $600.-$1,2
YES Indeed , The title says more than enough .It should be on every paper every day for a year . Why ? Why? Why does anyone fall for this crap .Why doesn't anyone really have any power to STOP all this B.S. They're ALL corrupt corporate Crimnal Con Artists .Spouting disgusting Lie After Lie After Lie After Lie .It's the same Phony hypocrisy that's been going on for centuries . Crystal Clear PROOF POSITIVE , Darwin IS SO right . He Is proven by the actions of All these Clearly Hairless APES .
When people start putting the USA AHEAD of their personal agendas then things will change for the better. Until that happens you'll get what you have today. You get what you vote for so live with it. DEMAND BETTER people. DEMAND BETTER!!!!
Hillary was born in October 1947. She will have celebrated her 61st birthday by the time the election occurs. Does that mean she will have racked up "36" years of "political experience"?
I'll be 60 in May. That gives me 39 years of "political experience". I was able to vote in 1969. Hmmm, I'm younger than she, but I have more "political experience".
Sorry, but she possesses the kind of "political experience" that I don't want in the White House.
This is another "They are all the same, so why should we bother?" post. This is typical of people who support corrupt politicians like the Clintons or George W. Bush. It's this logic that got Americans to think that the 2000 election didn't matter, so we ended up with the class dunce instead of the Nobel Laureate. Does anyone today think that Gore and Bush are no different? Even Ralph Nader knows that.
The Clintons are about as insincere in their politics as anyone this side of Mitt Romney. They are pro-gay, but they (if you take Hillary's thesis that she was President and Governor already) signed DOMA and instituted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that was more devastating to gay soldiers than the previous policy. They claim to be pro-black, but they are campaigning against Obama like Strom Thurmond would. They want to represent the Democrats, but Hillary still supports the Iraq War and War against Iran.
Is there any ideology or group they won't sell out if it means temporary political victory? We've already had 8 years of this crap, we don't need more. We certainly can't afford it while trying to dig ourselves out of the oncoming Bush Depression.
How refreshing to read a HuffPo post that doesn't contain the usual pile of Hillary Bad/Obama Good spin.
At this level of politics, virtually nothing matters but the candidate's ability to streetfight.
There is NO candidate with whom I'd agree on every vote they cast.
After 8 years of Bush ruining our nation, we need a smart, cunning, ruthless leader who will repair our broken economy and end Bush's ridiculous war in Iraq.
I don't give a fuck about a candidate's
"visions and dreams about what could be."
Hillary is just the kind of bitch we need right now. This isn't American Idol or Dancing With the Stars, it's our nation that's at stake.
I think she really will hit the ground running once she's elected. And so does the New York Times, who endorsed her candidacy today.
Out of all the outrage and disappointments a candidate will emerge. The question is, if at the end of this process, will you be willing to take the next step. Will you be able to support a candidate with whom you find faults for the presidency? There is no doubt that the Republican hard core will support the candidate of their party.
Politics is not and never has been a game of all or nothing. No one man can move the world with his perfect wisdom, because even if it were perfect, not all or even most people would judge it so, now or ever. That is the sorry truth about us.
The older folks writing here have seen both inspirations and disillusion in abundance. To abstain from the process is to forfeit the right to criticize.
There is one perfect message. Either vote in the general election or shut up, because you did not show enough interest or commitment to any element of your ideals to even pick the lesser of two evils.
Having said that, I will acknowledge that is in an idealist’s nature to disparage what is less than perfection. The problem is, you are part of an electorate of would be perfectionists that do not agree with your particular perfection.
This, not the Republicans, is why Democracy is hard.
Dear Dr. Reardon,
Superb essay/post. It also supports my contention that understanding well the science of psychology is of import in helping make sound choices in complex matters such as this one. It helps cut through the clutter and the BS, if ya will. It especially allows for one to see aberrations that should be a clear *Red* flag. It also allows for one to become aware when psychology is being used to try manipulate, or get inside ones head.
That said, ambition is not a dirty word, as long as it does not interfere with sound ethical standards, when that line is crossed, another *Red* flag should be raised.
Another warning sign can be found when a group find themselves to be above others of their peer group and form a conspiratorial network in order to ride roughshod over everyone else. This can be especially troublesome when it is raised to a *group think* (Beehive mentality), as their sense of entitlement becomes voracious. Any person that has membership in this type of group should be Persona non grata (PNG) for a leadership roll in a democracy, especially a Republic, because they are led, and cannot lead. This in mind, it is important to note if a person is self made, (can think for themselves, and are grounded on sound principle, virtuous, if ya will, yet, able to admit they are fallible.) this is a good sign leadership qualities, their idealism may oft seem quaint even corny. A good example would be Senator Dodd, His integrity and service ethics are stalwart.
On top of that, and of note, it must be taken into consideration, no matter ones preferred choice, the reality of the society we live in, to win (which is that of greatest import, like it or don't, losing brings one nothing) is everything, a candidate that don't appeal to the electorate in the whole will not be chosen. All efforts are for not in that case.
Hope may spring eternal, but not for the foolish. Sapere aude! Agape.
Problem is, even one of Bill Clinton's closest friends and allies, a man of genuine substance, offered the following headline and an explication born of "sadness":
Bill Clinton's Old Politics
I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point – that starting in the Reagan administration, Republicans put forth a range of new ideas while the Democrats sat on their hands. Many of these ideas were wrong-headed and dangerous, such as supply-side economics. But for too long Democrats failed counter with new ideas of their own; they wrongly assumed that the old Democratic positions and visions would be enough. Clinton’s 1992 campaign – indeed, the entire “New Democratic” message of the 1990s – was premised on the importance of taking back the initiative from the Republicans and offering Americans a new set of ideas and principles. Now, sadly, we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics. (Robert Reich)
Just this:
H. Clinton-lawyer
Mr. and Mrs.Obama-
Edwards-lawyer
Joe Biden-lawyer
Guliani-lawyer.
We are not going to get any meaningful change from these people steeped in the American worship of private property and money.
Since I am not given any other choice,
and I don't CARE if the President is a decent person. I want a strong leader able to surmount difficulties and wily enough to kick ass and push and prod country in the direction of sanity and solvency.
In my opinion the ONLY person MAN enough to do it in this sissy bunch is Hillary Clinton.
Agree. The notion that Obama is some kind of victim or needs to attack is just absolute nonnsense. What he needs to do to truly beat Hillary is impossible. He cannot become as well-informed as her.
He simply can't fake that.
The parties have begun to position themselves for magnanimous mediocrity. It takes an absolute, astounding failure for a change in politics to take the country in a sudden, desperate redirection. Low voter participation is a result of disinterest as the parties stop caring about the path and more about the driver.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
