(@ noonish – promoted by buhdydharma )
So when you discuss politicians, some folks seem intent in believing pols are not pols. My old refrain remains the same. During primary season, the cult of the candidates is strong. Consider this discussion of the non/tepid support for Ned Lamont and the strong support from Establishment Dems of Joe Lieberman.
As you can see, for members of a candidate cult, this is irrelevant. The most honest answer is this is what Establishment politicians do. They act in their own political interests as they see them. I never railed about these Establishment pols’ actions during the Lamont/Lieberman campaign because that is what I expected them to do.
Of course, some pols act against the Establishment position when they perceive it is in their best political interests. Chris Dodd’s admirable actions yesterday are an example of that.
Folks put too much stock in the motivations of pols. What matters is what they do, not why they do it. The answer to the why is always the same – to win elections.
Judge the what. Reward the actions you approve of. Condemn the actions you disapprove of.
Be a smart consumer of your politics. Remember that pols are pols and they do what they do.
47 comments
Skip to comment form
but I link to it in honor of your message 😉
I missed you….. I think I might need help…
It is ironic that we use emotion, emotional appeals, and talk about “liking” or “disliking” a candidate and speculate about their intentions. We often forgive the transgressions of those we think have “good intentions” and fiercely attack and condemn those who we suspect do not. Indeed, Americans in particular have a weird need to “like” their Representatives perhaps to maintain the illusion that they are “just like us” when they are not.
Years ago Canadians constantly bitched, carped, and complained about intensely disliking Pierre Elliot Trudeau and denied even voting for him and yet he had a lengthy run. After he died the general reaction was : I sure didn’t like him but I did respect him.
to expecting something along these lines from you at some point… with all the the emotional essaying and commentary here lately. 😉
Pols are like Popeye? “I yam what I yam and that’s all what I yam”
Condemn the actions you disapprove of.
Vote for results… not for promises?
it’s your turn to do the dishes.
pols are pols. It’s part of their job description to snow us into believing they’re the second coming.
A little detachment doesn’t hurt anyone. 🙂
Armando is occupied at the moment. He makes a rational appeal for dispassion and objectivity and now everybody is drooling, slobbering, confessing unrequited love, poor guy he is going to be quite miffed when he sees the thread. Kind of a “throw up the hands” what will I do with these kids thing.
Author
Not FP worthy imo.
But sobeit.
Russ Feingold would suddenly start working at selling out the Constitution if large numbers of people urged him to do it and then egged him on? I don’t think so. I think he’d leave politics first before acting against what he perceived to be the best interests of the country in pursuit of his own. He may be an extreme form, but there are others like him, on both sides of the aisle.
Character is part of the judgment we have to make when choosing who can be trusted to represent us and who can’t. People who can be completely shaped by rewards and condemnation have no principles, no strength of character, no moral core, and in most people’s estimation therefore can’t be trusted.
I’d rather vote for someone who’s willing to take a stand on principle than someone who I know will simply blow with the political winds.
For example, some might say Chris Dodd took his stand on the FISA hold out of desperation to get some life back into his campaign, and that the kudos he’s been getting from the netroots are a big part of why he’s acted as he has. But in fact he’s getting far more contempt and disapproval and dismissal from mainstream sources and from his peers over it, which would more than balance that out. Would he have taken the same actions if he weren’t running for president? No one can know for sure, but I suspect he might well have. Netroots support has encouraged him but the support has only come about because he’s taking principled action in the first place, not because he’s set out to pander to anyone. Supporting him may encourage him, but his actions come from a different place than a wish to pander – they come from his principles, and that’s as it should be.
You little Big Tent Democrat activist.
This is the best I’ve read.