Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Mosaic Musings...interactive poetry reviews _ Discussions -> Alexandria's Library _ Politicians: Hanging Chads or High Fliers?

Posted by: Jox Oct 27 03, 06:26

New Debate: Democracy produces bad leaders.

Democracy is great - we're very lucky. Despite Bush's hanging chads (how to win election) scandal and the UK's First-Past-The-Post travesty, democracy is good. However...

The pressure on politicians is very great indeed. They face public scrutiny from everywhere - their fellow politicians, their opposition politicians, the media, the public, abroad and so on. The pay is not tremendous either. OK more than I get by a long way but top-fliers in other spheres earn much more with far less responsibility.

So why do it? Well many do entry politics with a desire to help others. We are cynical about politicians but many are honestly trying to do good in an area which they feel they enjoy. But are they the best we could get? Maybe more pay and less intensive scrutiny would make politics a more appealing profession to more people - and some of those would be much better at it...

Any thoughts please?

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Oct 27 03, 18:57

Oh boy! :devil:

I just despise political issues!

I bet a woman in office would solve the problem! :speechless: :speechless:

Tee hee!

Posted by: Jox Oct 27 03, 20:37

Hi Cleo, thanks for replying.

You've obviously not lived under female absolute monarchs (e.g. Queen Elizabeth I) or female democratic leaders (e.g. The Baroness Margaret Thatcher). They can be very tough leaders.

The first had many people beheaded in an attempt to secure protestant rule and catholic suppression. I seem to remember that the original Mayflower settlers, in what is now the US, were fleeing from religious intolerance.

The second, I feel, would have had people beheaded if she could! She certainly had more determination to go to war in 1982, when the Argentine invaded The Falkland Isles, than most of the men round her. (And she took the decision to order HMS Conqueror (a nuclear-powered submarine) to sink the cruiser General Belgrano - which killed 200-300 sailors and scuppered any chances of peace. (Just in case anyone picks up on that, it is a decision I personally think was right). Britain defeated the Argentine invasion (despite the Falklands being quite near the Argentine coast) and British rule was restored. (The USA assisted the UK with the sale of a new type of missile and satellite intelligence). So Thatcher was vindicated - but, had it gone t'other way, she would have been out of her job the next day. Thatcher was an excellent war leader, albeit a short war.

Politics is essential - leave it alone as the German people did in the 1930s and a very nasty monster indeed may emerge. It is a matter of life and death; of wars and of genocide. It might even finish the human race off it we are not involved. I saw the comments about "Nine-Eleven" on MM but it is no use shedding tears alone. Action must be taken and that course of action is decided by politicians.

How can one despise political issues? Politics is the reason that The USA / UK / Australia invaded Iraq earlier this year. Good decision / bad decision ... it's all politics. Politics determines how much money goes to fight crime, to educate children and (at least in the UK) is spent on the National Health Service. Politics in the USA helps keep vast numbers of guns in that society (we have too many despite it being illegal to own hand guns). The USA's National rifle Association always seems to manage to scupper proper gun control - enabling many people - including quite a few schoolchildren at schools - to be gunned-down annually. These are all political issues. They need attention. Perhaps you meant that you despise the way in which political issues are handled? If so, you may well have a point... then again, the alternative might be Saddam, Hitler or Uncle Joe.

We actually need more women in politics - and it's about time the USA had a female president is it not?

Posted by: Don May 23 04, 14:08

We can always depend upon hyberbole to skewer statistics, history, and politics.

It is firmly believed that in pre-history societies lived harmoneously with each other. They were peaceful cultures. Some contend that the "peaceful societies" fell with Troy. The Iliad of Homer may be a prehistorical record of usurpers forcfully taking control and all leaders since are pretenders.

Archaeologists have recovered sufficient artifacts to soundly conjecture that Troy was a vassle city in vast Hittite Empire. Hence, the model of usurper is moved to an earlier prehistory.

Where does the idea of usurper come from? The strong shall rule the weak is ingrained by centuries of being that way. Our cultures have been purged of any other expectations. As once people could not conceive of a world without slaves because they had no machines and were not privy to modern understanding. However, a faint spark in our being urges us to believe that once upon a time mankind lived peacefully in true equality.

Since individuals have differing talents and skills, it is illogical to believe we were once equal. Of course, this is based on modern definition of equal, which defys what ancients considered equal. It may not have been in their vocabulary—so to speak. Consider the practice of making crime legal because it is impractical to enforce. If everyone drives 80 miles per hour in a 60 MPH zone the authorities might as well legalize the higher speed. To reverse engineer this concept, if idea of equal is missing, then so is unequal. Who cooks the most, who hunts the most, who is counting?

The argument that women would be more compassionate rulers is a dream or a distortion per first paragraph. Jox, you spoke of British females. Remember Catherine the Great? Russia had many Tsareenas, which were, to me, despotic. People are people and each individual is prone to be as corrupt as power allows.

The above is to show that rulers are a class of usurpers and the question may be altered to "How do we secure better usurpers?
It is time to insert a modifier or noun behind "better." "Better what", is the revised question.

Now we must provide a list of attributes such as just, fair, humane, wise, smart, religious, educated, lucky, and/ or whatever. Remember that historically democracies last about 200 years. The best known form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Such a person pops up takes absolute control, then changes their spots to tight controlled benevolence. Seemingly we have zero control to install or establish the best. Royal hous of Jordan may be an exception, no? The key word in the question now shifts to "better," as in context of improved

I relenquish the podium to the next idealist.

Don