Servants of the people, or in it for themselves?

castadiva

The government may not be doing what you deem best for you personally. However, in a country like America, I think it's safe to assume that the majority of government is acting in the best interests of the majority of its' citizens.

I just realised I left out five critical words in the Secession thread... Should read:
"The government may not be doing what you deem best for you personally. However, in a country like America, I think it's safe to assume that the majority of government is acting in what it believes to be the best interests of the majority of its' citizens."

What do you think? Is my view hopelessly naive, or reasonably pragmatic, in your opinion?

I'd be very interested to know what the perception is of American politicians' reasons for entering politics. My view may be coloured by the tradition of public service through politics that still largely exists in the UK - few politicians are nationally-visible, and many - the majority, even - spend their entire political careers (not particularly lucrative, at that) on the back benches, advocating for their constituents and trying to do what they think is in the best interests of their country and its' citizens. Is that how you view your politicians' motives for serving, or do you believe most of them are in it for self-aggrandisement? Are our cultures fundamentally different in this, or reasonably similar?

marsellient

I just realised I left out five critical words in the Secession thread... Should read:
"The government may not be doing what you deem best for you personally. However, in a country like America, I think it's safe to assume that the majority of government is acting in what it believes to be the best interests of the majority of its' citizens."

What do you think? Is my view hopelessly naive, or reasonably pragmatic, in your opinion?

I'm not an American, but in democratic countries I think that most politicians enter politics either because they believe they can do some good,or because they have a specific agenda. Increasingly, though, they find that they must compromise some of their beliefs to get the support (and massive amounts of money) they need to get very far. Enter the lobbyists and corporate interests.

doorki

I just realised I left out five critical words in the Secession thread... Should read:
"The government may not be doing what you deem best for you personally. However, in a country like America, I think it's safe to assume that the majority of government is acting in what it believes to be the best interests of the majority of its' citizens."

What do you think? Is my view hopelessly naive, or reasonably pragmatic, in your opinion?

I'm not an American, but in democratic countries I think that most politicians enter politics either because they believe they can do some good,or because they have a specific agenda. Increasingly, though, they find that they must compromise some of their beliefs to get the support (and massive amounts of money) they need to get very far. Enter the lobbyists and corporate interests.

I agree with this. I believe that the large majority of people get into politics to help but then some become grounded down by the realities of compromise and the rigors of constant campaigning that they end up being either bounced out, burned out or completely corrupted.

Espressocycle

They all want power, some to make the world more like they think it should be and some just for power's sake. Pretty sure Romney was in the latter camp, since he seemed not to have any actual beliefs.

adrian_indy

Sad to say, I have become completely jaded on the issue of our polticians. To get to the congressional level, you have to be willing to play ball if you want to stay there. And what is really disturbing to me, and what no one seems willing to point out, is that on both sides of the isle, somehow most politicians are able increase their fortunes DRASTICALLY, more than what we pay them could ever account for. They go to D.C., become friends with lobbyists, invest in either Secutiry companies, banks, or green technoloty, ect, then actively legislate in favor of their own stock interests. It's pretty sick. Maybe it's just me, but I don't tend to trust people who are trying to sell me any idea when I know they are going to get filthy rich off of it. I think that is a little of a conflict of interest, but that's just me.

treetop57

The authors of the US constitution attempted to design a system of government that uses the fact that politicians are often "in it for themselves" to give results that serve the people. That's what the division of powers and constitutional checks and balances are supposed to do. As Madison put it in Federalist #51:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

The idea is that ambitious people (men in Madison's day), placed in opposing positions in the government, would have to come together to serve the common good in order to pursue their personal good.

My personal opinion is that the system they designed doesn't do the best job of doing this. A system with greater "dependence on the people" would do a better job. In our system, responsibility for action is too diffuse for the people to punish those who make their lives worse and reward those who make their lives better. The president blames the congress, the congress blames the president, both blame the courts . . . and they are all right.