Gentlemen Politicians

[Ex-California]

The absolutely worst, most stupid idea ever is to think that celebrity entertainers would make good political leaders as they are "outsiders".

The only thing they are professional are promoting their own sorry asses and as perfomers, they can work their crowd and give a perfomance on stage that people like. And that's it. Nothing else. And in that role they can be funny and entertaining and can work the crowd and give an impression that they are different. And we know them because ...of their celebrity status. Assuming that these typically narcisists with huge ego's would somehow be adapted to lead people with superb leadership skills and not be controlled by slick professional politicians and/or advisors is simply whimsical. Good for them if they have been in some public position, a mayor of a small town or whatever, but if their CV is just about their actor/Singer/musician/athlete career, they likely are not the best pick for top political positions.

In fact, from their own entertainment world career, these people are very used to promoters and getting advice from "advisors" and thus likely have taken the whole political system to be a similar stage of theatre as the entertainment business is, just like this Robert Ritchie aka "Kid Rock", who has been for a while one of those celeb groupies and hangers-on that circles around the Republican party, which the GOP politicians really like. What entertainers and celebrities focus on is their own image, not on having an agenda to do.

Politicians love rock stars. And some rock stars politicians:




And what is also stupid is the idea that their outsider status of not having absolutely anything to do with public service whatsoever gives them an advantage. Because these people likely will be the most corrupt people you can find and "learning on the job" won't make them any better. It's similar to thinking that a "Children's Crusade" will succeed in conquering the Holy Land simply because children are so pure and innocent without vice unlike the dismal knights and rulers you usually use.

If people would want politicians with character and integrity, then choose those who write their own speeches. And listen to what they say. Just for starters.

You think that today's politicians have an agenda besides enriching themselves and getting reelected?



Dr. Hash is correct, politics need to be a part time job so the people who do it can focus on getting stuff done rather than making money. Also we need single terms, and if someone wants multiple terms there has to be at least a decade or more break in between terms

[SuburbanFarmer]

The absolutely worst, most stupid idea ever is to think that celebrity entertainers would make good political leaders as they are "outsiders".

The only thing they are professional are promoting their own sorry asses and as perfomers, they can work their crowd and give a perfomance on stage that people like. And that's it. Nothing else. And in that role they can be funny and entertaining and can work the crowd and give an impression that they are different. And we know them because ...of their celebrity status. Assuming that these typically narcisists with huge ego's would somehow be adapted to lead people with superb leadership skills and not be controlled by slick professional politicians and/or advisors is simply whimsical. Good for them if they have been in some public position, a mayor of a small town or whatever, but if their CV is just about their actor/Singer/musician/athlete career, they likely are not the best pick for top political positions.

In fact, from their own entertainment world career, these people are very used to promoters and getting advice from "advisors" and thus likely have taken the whole political system to be a similar stage of theatre as the entertainment business is, just like this Robert Ritchie aka "Kid Rock", who has been for a while one of those celeb groupies and hangers-on that circles around the Republican party, which the GOP politicians really like. What entertainers and celebrities focus on is their own image, not on having an agenda to do.

Politicians love rock stars. And some rock stars politicians:




And what is also stupid is the idea that their outsider status of not having absolutely anything to do with public service whatsoever gives them an advantage. Because these people likely will be the most corrupt people you can find and "learning on the job" won't make them any better. It's similar to thinking that a "Children's Crusade" will succeed in conquering the Holy Land simply because children are so pure and innocent without vice unlike the dismal knights and rulers you usually use.

If people would want politicians with character and integrity, then choose those who write their own speeches. And listen to what they say. Just for starters.

[Martin Hash]

People are corrupt which is the weakness of representative democracy. Integrity is welcome, even if it is still in a minority.

[Martin Hash]

Think of the outsized influence a politician has on society. The vast majority of these people have never risen to anything beyond mediocre getting-by, and will do anything to be someone. Small, Special Interest groups have recognized the weakness of representative democracy, and have successfully leveraged it by using their tiny numbers to gatekeep the candidates. It only takes a few people to block a candidate and put their own gasbag on the ticket. Voters can't tell: we read a 1-paragraph blurb in the Voter's pamphlet, if that. Most voters don't give a shit because they've never heard of anybody. A celebrity breaks through all that shit. Celebrities have Followers, and get press, good or bad. Almost any "known" candidate will beat an unknown nobody-nothing. And the celebrity owes no allegiance to the worms.

[Speaker to Animals]

Let's just be realistic about it. Most people who *have* to work are more likely to possess a sense of necessity that would lead them to seek out income sources using their elected office, whereas people who have made their fortunes on their own accord would only be doing politics for other reasons.

That doesn't stop the deep state from blackmailing them or somebody coercing them in some other way, but it's kind of difficult to bribe a wealthy man who ran for office for other reasons than making a living.

FU money is a powerful thing, after all.

[DBTrek]

People need to honestly ask themselves what skills it takes to be a successful politician.
(Hint: Fund raising and influence peddling #1 and #2)

And then, ask themselves if those same skills translate to being a good leader.
(Hint: They don't)

I understand people's disdain for "entertainers" as politicians because entertainers are constantly opening their mouths when no one asked for their opinions, and saying some really dumb stuff. Thus, the general distaste for President Meryl Streep or Senator rosie O'Donnell is obvious, right?

What makes *NO* sense to me is this unfounded reverence for professional politicians. This idea that if you haven't dedicated your life to perfecting your fundraising skills and acquiring the backing of large special interests so you can land a political position - then you're unqualified to lead.

Really?

Super-Telemarketers are the only people qualified to make decisions?
Since when?

[Viktorthepirate]

People need to honestly ask themselves what skills it takes to be a successful politician.
(Hint: Fund raising and influence peddling #1 and #2)

And then, ask themselves if those same skills translate to being a good leader.
(Hint: They don't)

I understand people's disdain for "entertainers" as politicians because entertainers are constantly opening their mouths when no one asked for their opinions, and saying some really dumb stuff. Thus, the general distaste for President Meryl Streep or Senator rosie O'Donnell is obvious, right?

What makes *NO* sense to me is this unfounded reverence for professional politicians. This idea that if you haven't dedicated your life to perfecting your fundraising skills and acquiring the backing of large special interests so you can land a political position - then you're unqualified to lead.

Really?

Super-Telemarketers are the only people qualified to make decisions?
Since when?

+1

[ssu]

You think that today's politicians have an agenda besides enriching themselves and getting reelected?

Is the answer then to look for people that want to enrich themselves ...and don't know the fuck about anything they are supposed to do???

I would say some Ron Paul or on the other side a Ralph Nader do have an agenda besides enriching themselves. Some Ron Paul is a true statesman in my view, even if I sometimes disagree with him.

You see the "gentlemen politicians" or "honourable" politicians just are put aside, they are the one's deemed to be unelectable. And because they aren't celebs or billionaires, Americans won't believe in them

Dr. Hash is correct, politics need to be a part time job so the people who do it can focus on getting stuff done rather than making money. Also we need single terms, and if someone wants multiple terms there has to be at least a decade or more break in between terms

Term limits are one thing, believing that celebrities with no political experience whatsoever are the answer for filling up top political jobs is simply ludicrous. Not having anything to do with the public sector, not even serving in the military, isn't what I think makes a great public servant.

[DBTrek]

Term limits are one thing, believing that celebrities with no political experience whatsoever are the answer for filling up top political jobs is simply ludicrous.

More or less ludicrous than believing that professional fundraisers who have cajoled a few big spenders into bankrolling their run for office make qualified leaders?

[ssu]

More or less ludicrous than believing that professional fundraisers who have cajoled a few big spenders into bankrolling their run for office make qualified leaders?

Again, I think not all US politicians are those that will change their positions to a) get funding and b) get votes irrelevant of the issue. Some obviously have an ideology and things they vouch for. The problem is to find them. One way is to read actually what they say and look if they can on their own immediately answer any questions... before an advisor or their "team" has prepped them.