It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why can't we have real politicians?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 02:32 PM
Okay so we have two political camps in the US divided by ideology. Republicans are considered to be on the right, either they are evangelicals, or they are neoconservatives. Democrats are said to be on the left and they have socialism theories in their ideology. None of the politicians in either party seem like they know anything about politics for that matter... Barack Obama at least knows quite a bit about socialism because he was a college professor and he probably studied history so he will be able to judge situations accurately. But, it seems like none of the politicians in Congress want to talk in real terms about what they are going to do when they are in office or even when they are in office. I thought I was going to be scammed by Barack Obama, on Universal Health Care, as I voted for him because of that over Hillary Clinton but I found out that he is actually making a push for keeping that promise.

But... it seems like none of the younger newer politicians seem like they can keep promises. They are all talk, but, they don't talk about history and what's happened in similar situation. Are they ignorant or stupid? Do they really think we can be fooled into voting for someone because they are talking in general terms? You could argue that Obama did this and people voted for him but people voted for him because people were tired of the Republican party and want a change. That being said, why can't none of our politicians tell the truth, or, give a honest opinion?

They like to think we wouldn't understand but they're wrong. A majority of Americans here disapprove of their actions including myself. Maybe it's just that Bush is a horrible President but I just think that it seems like we have no real politicians in Congress who are willing to tell the truth except for maybe Ron Paul, or Dennis Kuscinich. But do you see what I am saying? I'm enraged that they think they can just play us like that.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by Frankidealist35

That is the one problem with a two party system. Both the main parties have to keep their fringe members happy. Democrats have to keep the left wingers happy, along with the much more conservative Reagan Democrat/union members. The Republicans have to keep the fiscal conservative members (who fund the party) and the social conservative members (who vote in large numbers) happy. The smaller parties try to aim at one particular group:
1. The Green Party tries to go for the left wing and very liberal people.
2. The Reform Party (Ross Perot) tried to go after Reagan Democrats.
3. The Libertarian Party tries to go after fiscal conservatives who do not want the government intervening in their private lives.

There are many others too numerous to name who go after some of the parties bases. The two major parties then have to make promises to the portions of the party they need to win the election, or possibly lose them to a third party. The Republicans usually keep their base, but Democrats are siphoned off by more fringe groups. (Ross Perot seemed to get an equal number of both parties, which actually hurt the Republicans in the Western States). What is angering you is when the persons running in the primary promises you one thing, and then in the general election as they move toward the center they push off the promises as they try to get the independent and moderate vote.
That is another reason you see one party stating if you vote for a third party, you vote against them. While this is true of the numbers, people should vote from what they believe in, not the lesser of two evils. This election, all those third party candidates did not even muster 1% of the popular vote combined, a terrible number. It does seem that the third party is dead until someone with personality runs in the future.
I also hope Sen Obama works with everyone to fix these problems, no matter what the party or belief.

posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 01:14 AM
The Congressman from our district voted against all the bailouts because his constituents were mostly against them and he was up for re-election in November. I don't know what he actually thinks about them. In my opinion he votes wrongly many times but I think he sees it as representing his district. I'm not sure what you mean by "real politicians," but I guess I would call him one. Politicians are, well, political in their behavior, and he goes where the votes are.

Candidates for the presidency often promise to do much for people and may very well intend to at the time. When they actually get into office and get daily briefs on subjects like military intelligence they may well change their minds as a result of the new knowledge. Then they have to find ways to get their plans through Congress. Especially if the majority of Congress is of the other party, that usually takes compromise and deal-making, and often a president cannot achieve their true goals.

Of course, ideology plays a large part in shaping what a politician hopes or wants to do. Ideology defines much of human behavior. We all have ideologies, although most of us think we don't. We see our own ideology as truth and reason. When I pick someone to vote for, their ideology is important to me. I tend to pick people I most agree with.

If a candidate has an ideology (or no ideology except his own advantage) which he knows is unpopular or would turn a lot of people off he or she will often equivocate about it, or even disguise it at times.

I've read up a bit on both liberal and conservative thought and I find some compelling arguments in both. I tend to lean in the liberal direction on many issues, but on others I may be less so. IMO, neither Bush nor McCain are "true" conservatives to those who consider themselves as such.

Obama, on the other hand, is very much a "true" liberal in the tradition of FDR, Truman, JFK etc. He is at present outlining an economic course which is very reminiscent of Roosevelt's administration during the Great Depression. I agree with you that he most likely has read Marx and Engels and knows very well what socialism entails but is evidently not a socialist (he taught law at the University of Chicago and, interestingly, a course on Constitutional law).

I personally did not find Obama the least bit vague in his goals and plans for the presidency when he was running for election. Again, I recognize the outlines of the liberal philosphy (see Paul Krugman's "The Conscience Of A Liberal") very clearly in his ideas and rhetoric. Far from disappointing me, in the few short weeks since his election he is already outlining his plans to accomplish almost everything he promised. The nature of our system of checks and balances being what it is, he will not be able to do everything he wants to, or at least not in the time he would like, but his intention is to do as much as he humanly can. The only thing he might be wavering on is his timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and that is possibly the result of his consulting with top-level military and diplomatic sources. It also looks like he might have to put his health care reform on the back burner for awhile. But to me, Obama has exceeded any other president I have known in fulfilling his own promises, or trying to.

I think you're right in saying Paul and Kucinich are not deceptive in their tactics--I think they really believe everything they say they do. They do not have the polish and charm of Obama, but they are sincere.

To me, Obama is an open book. He doesn't seem to be equivocating very much at all. He is, of course, trying to reconcile many different factions, but he has promised to reach across the aisle and to weigh all sides and his choices for his administration show it. I think he is responsible to those who elected him and those who didn't both. That's not an easy job.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:23 AM
The problem with getting an honest politician in office is that an honest politician wouldn't want the job, and wouldn't last in the job long enough to really promote any real change.

The honest politician who would blow the whole lid off of the morally corrupt and cutthroat world of DC wouldn't last very long. They would either get mired in scandal, or assassinated. This happens every once and a while when someone comes forth that actually wants to buck the system a little too hard and sees what a monster it has become.

Corruption, greed and apathy to the will of the public is the order of the day in our governing bodies. Currently they are trying desperately to prop up the failed system that is our economy. What happens when they completely fail to meet the aspirations of the few in this country that actually hold sway? They of course will be ousted for someone who can push the agenda of those in charge through.

It is correct that the two major party system in this country is a complete facade. Orchestrated and dogmented to the populace in order to control and undermine the true will of the people they are charged to serve.

Those in power could not possibly pretend to control a populace truly united, therefore pseudo ideologies are put into play in direct opposition to each other in order to brainwash and distort public view. Dividing people along party lines and making sure the true will of the public is never ever addressed is key to this control.

Those in government themselves aren't even totally aware of the control of their masters, they blindly go along with their agendas blissfully ignorant to the fact that those policies are just playing to the few who do hold real power.

Those without the backing of the ones in power have zero chance of election and zero opportunity to hold court as it were with our nations reality.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by Frankidealist35

Before Teddy Roosevelt became President, the country was basically an oligarchy much like Russia under Boris Yeltsin. A few really powerful men controlled the country, and working people had no rights. The food industry was both unsafe and unsanitary, and one in five children worked a dangerous job.

There was no OSHA, no unemployment, no social security. Only the wealthy could afford any real medical care.

The corruption in the government would make Rod Blagojevich look like a boy scout. It is interesting how people complain today, when only one hundred years ago the country was run by the very wealthy who bought their senators and congressmen and bragged about it.

top topics

log in