What should our expectations be of political candidates?

JollyRoger

JollyRoger

Slippin' Jimmy
Supporter
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
43,931
Location
Chicago Sunroofing

Link to video.

As the above video demonstrates, a contender for the Presidency of the United States can't even recall one of the three programs he wants abolished. Has he really thought this through? If he had thought about the potential abolishment of the Department of Energy, would not some of those thoughts had prompted him of the actual name of the Department? Is it likely that it just soiunds impressive to want to abolish departments even though you have given little or no thought to the details? After a performance like that, should the politician be put alone in a room and not allowed to leave until he has produced an essay on his reasoning behind wanting to abolish the department? Is there a fundamental difference between this a saying there are 57 states or that Paul Revere rang some bells to keep the British from taking our guns? Should political debate be conducted at the Red Diamond level or should a debate be closed down when a candidate gets caught out in such non-seriousness?
 
This is USA specific:

Republicans: Rich, arrogant, stupid. Morally corrupt in the extreme, yet with a friendly facade of Jeeeeeeebus. Generally, you can expect them to not even hide these aspects about themselves. Today's republican party has dropped all pretense of "compassionate conservatism" in favor of "scorched earth feudalism".

Democrats: Rich, arrogant, stupid. Morally corrupt in the extreme, yet with a friendly facade of incompetence, submissiveness, and of course Christianity. Democrats will, however, try their darndest to hide all their many flaws in a futile attempt to please everyone.

Independents/third parties: Either completely wacko or relatively sane depending on one's beliefs, but inevitably ignored and forgotten about.
 
Kind of felt bad for him, as I have suffered from my mind going blank on some tiny technical detail when giving a presentation. But then I think he forgot his big picture idea, not some tiny inconsequential detail you could look up later, and I'm not running for president.

In general, I'm willing to forgive minor slips of the tongue if the person is willing to admit they messed up or forgot. However, the OP names a couple types of errors: Obama's seemed to be the former I described. Palin's error was compounded by her refusing to back down (and her supporters trying to change wikipedia, of all things, to make her "right"). If she had just said "I don't know", I would have had much more respect for her handling of that.
 
you mean political candidates in general?

at the very least, aspirants to public office must be able to show a higher level of competency in public speaking and must have above average communication skills.

to me, politicians play a very special and important role in society. i believe that that special role has more to do with the ability to connect with the people on various issues than actual policy-making.
 
What should our expectations be of political candidates?
Click to expand...

Realistically or ideally?

Realistically I expect them to be very good liars, good at pandering to their base, able to eloquently enunciate "the taxes are too damn high", etc.

Ideally? Hmm.. that's a tough question.
 
I expect political leaders to have actual ideas that can be converted into meaningful action, not talking points. Unfortunately, I was born in 1985, so I appear to have been born too late to witness effective political leadership in action.
 
My specific expectation is that politicians should be put into lie detectors on a regular basis. What we want are politicians who tell the truth, and who know when they don't know something. Two dangerous types of politicians are the liars and the ones who think they understand a concept while not really understanding it.

After that, I just expect them to have a decent grasp of reality. At that point, we can just choose based on policy.
 
I think you can forgive an occasional gaffe. But, if the person consistently provides episodes like Perry's above, or like Palin in 2008, that's a bit more damning.

The problem is the American electorate WANTS idiots because ever since the early 1800s, rather than wanting people who have superior knowledge and skills we want candidates who remind of ourselves and have disdain for demonstrated intellectual capacity.

Mencken said it best:

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
 
El_Machinae said:
My specific expectation is that politicians should be put into lie detectors on a regular basis. What we want are politicians who tell the truth, and who know when they don't know something. Two dangerous types of politicians are the liars and the ones who think they understand a concept while not really understanding it.
Click to expand...

Can't you easily cheat on lie detectors though?
 
I expect a political candidate to have actual political ideas - that is, how he sees the future and what he wants it to be, and being able to act on these ideas.

The lacking questions though, that is so often forgotten to make fun of the acceptable targets (that is : politicians), is :
"what do I should expect from voters ?"

Because the fun thing is, in a democracy, YOU are, in the end, responsible for the mess that politicians YOU elected are doing.
You do not have the right to complain if you didn't vote (a blank vote counting as a vote for this purpose of course), you don't have the right to complain if you voted again for someone who already screwed you, you should not complain if you actually don't look at what your candidate DO and don't just give him a free pass because he's "of your party" (and the same for the opposite guy).
We may complain about how politicians are bastards, but we tend to forget that they do come in power because WE vote for them.
 
.Shane. said:
I think you can forgive an occasional gaffe. But, if the person consistently provides episodes like Perry's above, or like Palin in 2008, that's a bit more damning.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even call that a gaffe.. This is supposed to be a big part of his platform - he should know it inside and out.

Otherwise it's a dead giveaway that it's just a talking point, which politicians have been using more and more.. Talking points with no substance
 
Conversely, we have an electorate that wants to hear the truth, but then convulse when they actually hear it. So Perry spews platitudes, but he is not as well-trained as some of the others. The same goes for Palin—these people all have beliefs, but they can't bring themselves to actually say them out of fear of losing the election.

Shane got it with the Mencken quote.
 
Yep, Perry gets nailed on two things for this event:
1) He is consistantly making gaffes.
2) This is a significant point. Not just some throw away (the department chosen could actually influence votes) or him misspeaking.
As mentioned not knowing a key platform element makes people wonder about commiment to taht and other elements.

In comparison to Obama's 57 states, that was just a throw away comment that meant nothing to his politics and could be immediately understood for what he meant to say. Further, Obama has a far better track record with making such mistakes (his political strength is his campaigning ability).

As for the Paul Revere statement Palin's defense of it makes itentirely indefensible. A simple "woops, my bad" would have went a long way to hushing it up. But combine her defense of an obviously wrong statement with her dumb image, and it became a big mess.
 
say1988 said:
As for the Paul Revere statement Palin's defense of it makes itentirely indefensible. A simple "woops, my bad" would have went a long way to hushing it up. But combine her defense of an obviously wrong statement with her dumb image, and it became a big mess.
Click to expand...

Actually she was right, mostly. While Revere wasn't exactly firing warning shots. Part of what he was doing was alerting the Regulars that the Colonists knew they were coming. He alerted militias and either rang, or had rung church bells throughout the countryside.

I love the reaction to her "Time to party like it's 1773" comment.
 
ZyAZz.jpg
 
amadeus said:
Conversely, we have an electorate that wants to hear the truth, but then convulse when they actually hear it. So Perry spews platitudes, but he is not as well-trained as some of the others. The same goes for Palin—these people all have beliefs, but they can't bring themselves to actually say them out of fear of losing the election.

Shane got it with the Mencken quote.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. The current system rewards people who say meaningless platitudes over those who tell the truth. What we truly want (in a meta way) are honest politicians who know their limitations. This is why we need a sea change in what we demand from them. Right now, the maverick politician cannot win. But he'd win if everyone was handicapped so that they had to play honestly.
 
Dawgphood001 said:
This is USA specific:

Republicans: Rich, arrogant, stupid. Morally corrupt in the extreme, yet with a friendly facade of Jeeeeeeebus. Generally, you can expect them to not even hide these aspects about themselves. Today's republican party has dropped all pretense of "compassionate conservatism" in favor of "scorched earth feudalism".

Democrats: Rich, arrogant, stupid. Morally corrupt in the extreme, yet with a friendly facade of incompetence, submissiveness, and of course Christianity. Democrats, will, however, try their darndest to hide all their many flaws in a futile attempt to please everyone.

Independents/third parties: Either completely wacko or relatively sane depending on one's beliefs, but inevitably ignored and forgotten about.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the Simpsons:

Democrat slogan: We hate ourselves! We can't govern!
Republican slogan: We hate everyone! We're just plain evil!
 
El_Machinae said:
My specific expectation is that politicians should be put into lie detectors on a regular basis. What we want are politicians who tell the truth, and who know when they don't know something. Two dangerous types of politicians are the liars and the ones who think they understand a concept while not really understanding it.
Click to expand...

Hypothetical lie detectors that function perfectly, or are real lie detectors good enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Laws of War?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
2K
Voidwalkin
V
Samson
  • Poll Poll
What are the best odds?
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Hygro
Hygro
Broken_Erika
US Debt Ceiling
7 8 9
Replies
178
Views
12K
Farm Boy
Farm Boy
Nikas Kunitz
What if we just remake this mod anew?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
Nikas Kunitz
Nikas Kunitz
Moriarte
Implications of the Monopolistic Order
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
Plains-Cow
Plains-Cow
Back
Top Bottom