When challenged about their policies or actions there are two main standards that politicians and high-level government are held to. They are how their constituency views the decisions and how history will view the decisions. I do not like either of these standards.
First, when a politician wants to challenge another politician on an issue, rather than use terms like "right" and "wrong," he or she is more likely to say something like, "the American people agree with me and not you." I am always irritated by that phrase, because plenty of horrible people throughout history still had the general populace's support.
When a government official does something controversial or takes a polarizing position, the media rarely ask what is right and wrong. The media rather asks how history will view the individual or his or her actions. This bothers me because history is not unbiased. Look at a figure like Christopher Columbus as an example. Today he is probably more hated than loved. One hundred fifty years ago someone might be able to honestly say that history treated Columbus well. Changing perspectives on the events he set in motion changed people's perspective of him.
I understand the reasons to use these standards. When a government is structured like a democracy, the people's opinions about issues will partially determine who gets to hold government positions. Also, in theory, history should glorify the people who make the right decisions because retrospect is supposed to be 20/20. This is not how it works in practice, but it sounds good.
I am not saying to not vote for someone who uses those phrases, either. While the statements are not ideal, they are certainly pertinent. Also, well-meaning people can get coached into saying things that I do not like. I just do not like the idea of appealing to an audience's sense of popularity over its sense of morals.
If someone overdoes it, though, I probably will not vote for him or her. Shouldn't one of the signs of true leadership be that the individual is willing to sacrifice glory to do what is right? So, as politics starts to heat up over the next year, I will probably mention politics from time to time without without advocating one specific politician. I am, however, advocating that you write off any comments you hear about what the American people think or how history will view someone's actions. Those are not the most important questions to be addressed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I am with you in that politicians should sacrifice glory to do what is right. I do believe that politicians get coached early in their career on how to address the American people to curry favor. This may or may not make them good candidates, but unfortunately, how they appear to the public is how they get elected. Just like a good lawyer learns how to move a jury to his way of thinking to favor his client. Maybe this is why so many people in this field get into politics.
Politics is always touchy. As for Columbus, he did discover a land that millions of people (like the Vikings) already knew about. Still, I think you could call Columbus pretty brave regardless of what his true intentions were. In a true democracy, a politician is suppose to serve the people they were elected to represent. If the politician happens to disagree with the morality of an issue, he or she should take it to the people and try to win them over, other wise he will be out of a job election. The reality is that media controls those line of communication. Not a perfect system, but I don't know of one that is.
What annoys me is the mindset of the popular view is the will of the american people (as in a true democracy.) That can be very dangerous as you alluded too. Good thing we are a social republic.
I am tired of politics, already.
I am tired of politics, already.
:)
I like politics, I just don't like any of our politicians. I guess no one is perfect. I'm just tired of settling for least bad.
Post a Comment