Some Politicians Are Into Sustainability/Environmentalism
Unfortunately, most of our politicians approach their role from the perspective of law; in fact, four of the last nine U.S. presidents had degrees in the subject. But what happens when someone comes along with a perspective of environmental and social justice? Check out the article linked above.
I’ve written about this earlier, but it’s such a wonderful topic that it bears repeating–and celebrating.
Lawyers are often attracted to a political careers for may reasons, not the least being it’s one of the few professions that can be resumed in the advent of losing an election without too much disruption.
While studying, law students often develop skills of rhetoric, debating, political organization as well as understanding human behavior, and institutions. Law students should be able to understand and appreciate the weaknesses and merits of all sides, especially in matters of public policy.
Lawyers learn a great deal about the problems faced by business and citizens from all walks of life. Good lawyers understand the value and discipline of thoroughly researched policies.
Having said all that, it still amazes me how many lawyers who enter public life should realize the best contribution they could make would be never to run for office ! 🙂
You make many good points here.
The central problem is morals and the vicious cycle that goes like this:
The day to day work that politicians perform is so corrupt that only scummy people will do it.
A congress of scummy people makes the political process more corrupt.
The only way to make a dent in this is to enact laws that get the money out of politics, but then you have the Catch 22: our lawmakers get rich precisely by keeping the money in politics.
I’ll admit: fixing this is not a piece of cake.
Craig,
“get the money out of politics” , hmmm…that’s as naive as saying get the money out of society !
National politics, (well, really all politics) has always largely been about money. The economy of any advanced nation is the main purpose of any administration.
Suppose you got your wish, and somehow prevented any type of political donations, this would limit candidates to be either very rich, or supported by party or “special interest” groups such as unions etc, whose candidates would become timeserving minions of “backroom” power brokers with hidden agenda’s. How would this be any improvement ? ( back to the days of Tammany Hall) Getting elected costs money, isn’t it better to have overt donations, than covert ?
As populations increase, it costs more and more money to reach and motivate mass audiences (most of whom would rather watch “reality TV ” than actual reality).
The problem you don’t seem to accept, is that with representative government politicians really do represent the “people” . The people get the government they deserve.
The cry of “get the money out of politics” , seems to be voiced more and more by one side of political ideology, especially when that agenda is losing credibility.
Losers always want to change the rules, because it’s difficult to accept that the majority of people don’t agree with their agenda.
That’s essentially the problem with candidates like Bernie Saunders, who are defined more by what they are against, than any viable policies of what they support.
Today, more than ever, the US faces great challenges that need a president and congress that can harness the best of America, unite and inspire it’s people, and lead it’s international allies with resolution and understanding.
America, and the world desperately needs not merely a good American President, but a great President !
Sadly, that’s not going to happen. In contrast to the wily and determined Vladimir Putin or even more cunning,ruthless, consummate politician, Jinping Xi, the US can only field the eccentric (and unelectable) Donald Trump, with very few (if any) Presidential credentials, or Hillary Clinton, who although in many ways well qualified, is weighted down with past mistakes, failures, and who is trapped with the endless comprises of her rise to office.
HC could still surprise. She is America’s best hope. Despite all her many faults, like LBJ she may still have the capacity to rise above all dross that has crippled so many US Presidents since Reagan and prove to be a great leader.
However, I don’t believe that she will have the chance. No sooner will HC be inaugurated , than both the left and the right of US politics will be determined to prove her administration a failure.
The tragedy besetting the US is bitter internecine conflict within US public life, and the apathy of American voters to unite in the face of the growing economic threat from emerging international powers.
The US can no longer sit complacently, secure in the knowledge that it’s vast wealth and enormous resources will protect the US from competition. The wolves are at America’s door, and no one is manning the ramparts !
MarcoPolo, or should I address you and Jeckyl/Hyde, I really don’t go along with this at all. You treat the subject “ideology” as it it were a disease. Hundreds of millions of our fellow travelers on planet Earth have ideologies that go like this: Our civilization has lots of ailments causing incredible degrees of suffering, and, at this point, these ailments could result in mass extinction. We think that dealing with this is important.”
When you write: “Losers always want to change the rules,” let me point out that we are all potentially BIG losers, rich people included. I suggest that you not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Craig,
I think you and I have a different definition of the terms “Ideology” and ” Ideologues”.
I don’t think ideology per se, as a disease, but adherents of any ideology tend to interpret the world through the prism of a particular ideology or doctrine.
Unfortunately, adherence to any doctrine produces a lack of perspective, objectivity and tolerance. Adherence to ideology is seldom conducive to rational analysis.
It’s easy to advance moralistic, sentimental concepts with great passion, but unless you can enunciate a practical method of achieving or implementing the policies you propose, it’s all just so much waffle.
Without practical and demonstratively achievable outcomes, ideological hyperbole becomes as effective as a Beauty Pageant contestant earnestly wanting to work for ” World Peace” !
Representative government requires people entering public life to accept some measure of defeat and lack of acceptance. If a politician discovers the majority of people don’t agree with a proposal, he or she, can’t just petulantly demand the rules be changed to allow an advantage for his supporters.
Nor do I share your belief that ” mass extinction ” is so imminent that we should abandon all of the principles of representative government in favour of allowing any ideology or doctrine become dominant and suppress all contrary views or dissent.