It takes a certain type of person to be attracted to run for high political office. Superficially charismatic, good oratory and image management skills, being quick on your feet, a good personal story, the ability to persuade others, etc.
Things like honesty, conscientiousness, a good grasp of public policy, financial knowledge… these important things are often secondary. “Give me a candidate I can drink a beer with!”. “Wow! Candidate X loves grits! I love grits too!”.
The worst candidates seem to have limited morals or ethics, various degrees of sociopathy or narcissism, see themselves as the state. People talk about how Singapore attracts high fliers to power by paying millions in salaries. This might help. But how else might countries attract better people for political office? Or is the current system satisfactory in a complicated world?
I think I realized this in elementary school when we voted for class president. There was a kid who talked about doing stuff, and then there was a popular kid who, of course, won. Can’t blame the kid for running because I’m sure it seemed fun, but I can blame people who voted for him.
I think it would help if we respect officeholders and career civil servants. So stop with the “deep state” bullshit and stop calling elected members of the House “congresscritters.”
The official campaign period in the UK is 25 working days, or roughly five weeks.
Britain hss a ban on political advertising on commercial television and radio. The parties are instead given free time to screen short pre-election broadcasts on television. Every major candidate running gets equal time.
There aren’t election contribution limits in the UK, but there are strict limits on how much candidates can spend. They put less emphasis on freedom of speech and more on equality of access. That way no one can buy their way into office by outspending the other candidates. During the campaign for the UK’s 2017 general election, political parties, candidates, and non-party campaigns doesn’t about 40 million total; compare that to literal billions of dollars spent in the US.
I could really get behind not having a new presidential campaign start a week after the old one finished.
Having voters vote their “conscious” (consciousness?), instead of just mindlessly obeying extremist blather and talking points, would indeed be a step up for some localities. But I think what you might have been meaning to suggest is that voters should vote their conscience. (Anybody else remember the good old days when the word “conscience” was familiar enough to Republicans that they at least knew how to spell it? )
Does seem to work, though. I personally feel pretty satisfied with most of my local, state and national representatives, although we do get the occasional lemon. I think it’s mostly because a lot of the voters in this area care about the same things I do, and a lot of us are politically active.
I don’t know how to apply that prescription in the case of engaged, thoughtful voters who are surrounded by large majorities of Fox-addicted conspiracy-theorist ignorant goons, though.
Well, I think it will take a kind of revolution in communication. Hopefully social media sites that encourage good behavior regardless of beliefs will start to proliferate. When we are not prejudging each others motives, we tend to listen to each other more. People are fed up with the fighting and division, I think we are getting closer to this kind of revolution.
A better voter would be a better person, a better person would be someone who thought for themselves and didn’t just go along with his party or peers. He would be a critical thinker who weighed each issue without bias. He would be able to see through politicians who spread hate and division for votes. He wouldn’t always vote his own self interests. The list could go on and on but we all know what a good person is.
There should be vigorous testing on civics and knowledge of history and world events in order to get on the ballot in any state. It should be as difficult to become a U.S. presidential candidate as it would be to, say, score in the 90th percentile or higher on the SAT. Of course, such exams would have to be carefully vetted to avoid bias or prejudice.
Secondly, a presidential candidate should be required to have had 5 years’ minimum experience in total in one or more of the following occupations: Retail work, teaching, restaurant server, fast food, janitor/sanitation work, some form of manual labor, etc. Basically, any job that requires you to work hard physically, and/or can be degrading in some way.
What I know is that most see themselves as a good person and will think you are referring to them and not the people they oppose. I see an approach used by so-called astrologers and psychics used to appeal to a broad range of people, without getting specific enough to get on anyone’s bad side. That is the reason I asked for specific examples.
Yup - the statement “I am a person who thinks for myself and don’t just go along with party or peers, am a critical thinker, unbiased” would probably get 90% agreement from D’s and R’s alike.
If political advertising were somehow regulated, I wonder what, if anything, that would mean for Fox, Newsmax, and their ilk. If they e tried to establish themselves with politics in a country that does have such limits, how would their tactics change?
Newsmax is on one of the several aggregator data channels at the bottom of the EPG on Freeview (the main free-to-air digital broadcast platform here), and I think Fox is or was a available in an equally lowly position on some cable service (some years ago I tried checking out their viewing figures, and they were vanishingly small). I doubt if they have much impact, indeed I think Fox may have given up trying.
There is a new channel on Freeview trying to push the envelope when it comes to one-sided comment. But it has been much ridiculed for technical inadequacies as much as its politics (GBNews, if you want to look them up). I don’t know what sort of licensing regime applies to them, as distinct from the public service broadcasters and other major news providers, but I suspect the tradition of public service news is strong enough for the obviously one-sided ranters not to be taken that seriously.
You have to differentiate between “people that I disagree with” and “people that are poor quality politicians”.
There is little doubt that Thatcher was divisive, there is also little doubt that she was an incredibly skilled political operator. The same could be said of many figures of that era of all political stripes. You look at the benches now and it is pretty poor fare all round.
I personally would like to see a greater emphasis placed on previous experience outside of the political machine. Not a simple conveyor of candidates from Oxbridge PPE to special political advisor to cabinet roles.
ETA, and I see Velocity has made much the same point but in a more specific way. FWIW I broadly agree.
)