All politicians should serve one term and then be euthanized
All party members should take part in 2 elections and then be euthanized
Eventual we have no politicians and no parties, only people who can pick and chose the individual things that are the best overall
I think it depends on what you mean by “trustworthy”. Is it about keeping campaign promises? Or is it about acting in good faith to best serve the interests of their constituents?
I think the trust we put in politicians is that they kinda have to at least try to do most of what they say they will do, lest the people turn on them. It’s not that we necessarily trust them to be particularly honest people, but that the nature of politics means they will have to at least appear to be trying to do what they said they will do.
That 66% figure it probably about the minimum you have to do so that people will think the part you didn’t do isn’t worth getting upset over, especially if they are good about picking the parts people care most about.
The issue with Clinton is that she was no less trustworthy than anyone else. Pretty much everything she promised she’d have to try to do, simply because of the political realities. She didn’t promise anything too outlandish, to my knowledge.
Despite all the jokes, I would argue that, regardless of party or ideology:
VERY few politicians are crooked. Most are pretty honest.
VERY few are completely, shameless liars and hypocrites. Most have a set of principles that they genuinely believe in.
We have a system that requires politicians to remain in near-permanent campaign mode. That means they’re constantly having to raise money AND stay in the good graces of the voters.
Voters and donors expect “stuff” in return for money and votes. Which means a politician who wants to stay in office has to do what makes donors and voters happy, even if they’re things the politician would rather not do.
Ergo, most politicians have to pick and choose their battles, to elevate some priorities over others. “Hey, if I want to accomplish good things A, B & C, I may have to hold my nose and do slimy things X, Y & Z.”
Didn’t realize this thread had actually come back to life!
So you seem to be endorsing my premise that standard politicians are not, in fact, trustworthy. I started this discussion to focus on whether or not politicians are trustworthy, not whether it’s a good or bad or necessary thing, so the bulk of what you wrote isn’t really relevant to what I’m trying to debate (obviously other people will debate what they want). From the way people presented the article I linked, I would be wrong to be cynical about politician’s promises - but in looking into it, it confirms that they are in fact very untrustworthy and that you can’t rely on ‘he/she said X’ to mean ‘he/she will do X’.
I mean trustworthy in the sense of making a reasonable attempt to keep promises that they make. “Acting in good faith…” is just a weasel-worded way of saying “lying to get reelected, then doing what you really want to once you’re in the office” as far as I’ve observed.
One problem, what you’re really saying is that she’s just as untrustworthy as any other politician, a position which I agree with but that I encountered numerous people who didn’t, and which doesn’t match the article’s conclusion (though it matches the article’s data) The second problem is that the specific discussion that prompted this was her campaign promise to kill the TPP - people were criticizing Trump for axing the TPP, and claiming that Hillary would have supported the TPP in direct opposition to her promise not to. This directly contradicts the claim often made during the election that Clinton was trustworthy, since she was going to violate a promise she made during the campaign because she never intended to keep it.
Specific example in the discussion that prompted this, Clinton’s poition on the TPP that I discussed just above this quote.
On what evidence do you base this? The article I linked says that most politicians fail to make a reasonable attempt to keep 1/3 of their campaign promises, and I regard that as highly dishonest behavior.
This is weasel worded to the point of being a useless statement. Of course politicians sometimes feel shame about things that they do, but the shame doesn’t stop them from lying or magically make them trustworthy. Of course politicians have some principles they believe in and act on, but that doesn’t mean that most of the things they do fit those principles, or that those principles match what they say to get elected.
I’ve dated numerous people and do have relatives. I wouldn’t continue dating someone who stood me up for no reason 1/3 of the time that I made plans, or who cheated in 1/3 of their relationships, or who was lying about 1/3 of what they told me, and certainly wouldn’t consider them trustworthy. Same thing with relatives, relatives that don’t follow through on their commitments a significant fraction of the time don’t go in the ‘trustworthy’ column in my book.
Pantastic:
You are speaking in irresponsible and non-specific generalities with this, just as you did at the start.
As someone said above, it is NOT true that even MOST “standard politicians” tell huge lies 1/3 of the time, “stand you up” a third of the time, and/or so on.
You are interpreting various actions and inactions by politicians that you are upset with, to constitute “lies,” or other betrayals. You are ignoring the fact that NO POLITICIAN IS RESPONSIBLE ONLY TO YOU, among other things.
Cite, please. The article I linked says otherwise, and links to other articles saying the same thing. You’re just baldly asserting that I’m wrong, and doing so with a lot of statements that don’t make sense in context.
Please read the article that I linked to. I am interpreting politicians making a campaign promise and then not making a good faith effort to follow through on said promise as a lie, and considering it to damage my trust of them in the same manner as a person promising to pay back money and then failing to repay the loan for no good reason. I think I’ve made that clear, and have no idea how your response relates to what I said in other than a vague manner.
I especially have no idea why you’re shouting “NO POLITICIAN IS RESPONSIBLE ONLY TO YOU” since I never claimed that any were, or said anything implying that they are or should be. I’m ‘ignoring’ it in the sense of not mentioning something that is irrelevant to the conversation that I already believe, in much the same way that I’m ignoring IT GETS DARK EARLIER IN THE WINTER or SUGAR IN THE GAS TANK IS BAD FOR THE CAR.
Uh-huh. When Republicans stop trying to hijack the political system by dragging their feet, I’ll cooperate. In other words, fugeddaboutit.
What I am saying, is that the article you are quoting from, AND you, are interpreting both the promises and the results. You are applying your personal judgment, and/or that of the article writer to the politicians and the actions involved.
I have studied a lot of history, AND paid careful attention to current day political stuff, specifically looking for examples of lying, and of the other things you complain about, and after all pertinent facts are taken into account, MOST claims of lies and so on, are moot at best.
And further, in all of my studies and observations, I have found that there is a rather obvious continuity and stability about human behavior, across all cultures, and across all specialties, which can’t be seen unless you work to divest yourself of what might be called “structure-based prejudices.”
That is, that many things which you might like to call a “lie,” are only “lies” if you artificially decide to designate them as such.
Take a look at common political "promises," for examples. Most would-be leaders "promise" to make your life easier and or better if you vote them into power. They almost NEVER make sufficiently specific promises that you CAN honestly declare them to be lies later, and in most cases where they DO get specific (such as when Obama "promised" to close GITMO), there are lots of other factors involved with why they don't fulfill those "promises," which means that you can't honestly hold them accountable.
Similarly, in mate relationships, people make lots of “promises” which are not specific, and which can only be declared to have been lies later, if you work very hard to twist and adjust your own interpretations about both the “promises,” and about the actual events.
The reason I distrust is not so much that they don’t keep their promises (which they often cannot because of opposition from other parts of the government–many checks and balances) as that they don’t fulfill their basic function of providing for the general welfare. When potential problems are presented to them they blow them off. I give four especially blatant examples.
Katrina. “You’re doing a heck of a jog, Brownie.” The government really fucked that up. But it goes beyond the response. Around 2000, Scientific American had an article that essentially predicted it. Or maybe predicted that it could happen and should be planned for. It was obviously ignored.
Love Canal. I just read somewhere the history of it. Apparently the company that used it as a toxic waste dump (legally since there no environmental protection laws at the time) repeatedly warned against using the site for any kind of residential development. The government ignored them.
Flint, MI. They were warned before they started using the acid water that serious lead contamination was a possibility. They ignored the warning and did it anyway. When scientists tested the water and found it high in lead, they denied it, claimed the tests were faulty and basically lied.
Walkertown, Ontario. Water again. The town privatized the water, to save money. So they paid in lives lost. Literally. First they hired unqualified goons to test the water. And when the chlorination plant stopped working, the private company decided not to fix it. IIRC 7 people died from the contaminated water.
I could give more. So could any of you. Notice how the current administration is about to repeal the environmental protection laws and close the agency.
It is hard to blame the politicians for all of this. They work in the interests of their true constituents, those paid for their election campaigns.
I would say that it’s slightly more complex than that.
The process of selection encourages dishonesty. But, that’s only for positions where anyone is actually paying attention.
If it’s not a headline political position, then the positions are being filled by the party and internally the party might be selecting for connections, intelligence, dependability, or whatever other criteria. And then that person will just get selected based on the predominant party vote in the area.
And for positions where there’s literally no one paying attention - town councils, PTA boards, home owners associations, etc. - then it’s basically whatever retiree wackjob has the strongest desire to rule the roost.
Most politicians aren’t headline politicians. So one could say that your ‘standard’ politician is probably as honest as anyone else. Or, perchance, crazy and honest - those tend to go together.
[quote=“igor_frankensteen, post:29, topic:778314”]
The many things which you might like to call studies and observations are only studies and observations if you artificially decide to designate them as such. The aspects of human behavior that you say have continuity and stability only can be called continuous and stable if you artificially decide to designate them as such. “Structure-based prejudices” are only “Structure-based prejusices” if you artificially decide to designate them as such. You clearly need to work to divest yourself of what might be called ‘structure based prejudices’ before you recommend that I do so.
In the meantime, I’ll continue to use the English language to discuss topics, and not waste time on useless tautologies that decry trying to use judgement and language to analyse a phenomenon.
If you had a contract with a person and they fulfilled 2/3 of the contract would they be considered trustworthy? No, politicians are not trustworthy.
Campaign speeches are not contracts.
So?
So a politician may be entirely sincere in what he tells people what he wants to do, then finds out that either
Then that politician doesn’t understand the job he’s applying for and shouldn’t have run for election. You’re telling me “He’s not untrustworthy, he’s just incompetent!” is supposed to make people feel better? Incompetence = untrustworthiness. Nobody trusts incompetent people.
If the vet says “I’ll cure your dog’s brain cancer!” and your dog dies, finding out later that no veterinarian could have cured your dog, because it simply isn’t possible, doesn’t make you trust the vet more. In fact, quite the opposite. Professionals know their own limitations and the boundaries of what is possible.
Besides, politicians aren’t (always) stupid. They know what they can get done is very little, but they’ll promise you the moon anyway. That is not trustworthy behavior. That’s con artist behavior. In short, promising things that can’t be done (or worse, shouldn’t be done) tells us a lot about someone’s trustworthiness, none of it positive.
[quote=“Pantastic, post:32, topic:778314”]
You indulged in what you accuse me of, throughout that complaint.
Especially, isn’t your entire thread, based insistently on using " judgement and language to analyse a phenomenon"?
Your thread IS based on JUDGING politicians, according to your interpretations of the LANGUAGE that you and they apparently have differing opinions on.
I have a sort of follow-on, functional question for you. A serious one, which I think is imperative to ask and answer, if you are really serious about this thread subject. That is, IF you declare as you seem to wish to, that all or most politicians are untrustworthy, what next? What do you intend to do with that idea, should you be able to get a lot of other people to agree to it?
Many people who talk sweepingly about how horrible politicians (or lawyers, or other commonly despised groups) are, only do so, as a prelude to excusing themselves from taking action as a citizen, in dealing with the problems. All they want to do is self-righteously rant, and maybe have people buy them drinks in bars, for having ranted.
This isn’t an accusation, it’s a genuine question, because how we answer your challenge, is logically affected by what you plan to use it for.