What virtue do you value most in a politician?

[sls.stormyrider]

Meant to post this last week -
there is a 4 way race for gov in MA. It's too close to call between the Dem and the GOP, 2 3rd party candidates are way behind.

Anyway, the last of many debates was last Monday. Charlie Gibson was the moderator and did an interlude wanting one word answers.
He asked - what virtue do you value most
answers - passion, loyalty (and I forget the other 2).

but nobody answered---

honesty

[phil]

Meant to post this last week -
there is a 4 way race for gov in MA. It's too close to call between the Dem and the GOP, 2 3rd party candidates are way behind.

Anyway, the last of many debates was last Monday. Charlie Gibson was the moderator and did an interlude wanting one word answers.
He asked - what virtue do you value most
answers - passion, loyalty (and I forget the other 2).

but nobody answered---

honesty

i value not being a politician. seriously. show me someone who's running for office without ulterior motives (that is, they genuinely want to serve the public) and i'll show you someone who's about to lose. i hate politics and, to a certain extent, anyone who cares about them. fuck democrats, fuck republicans. the blind loyalty to these parties is what's ruined our system

[nab]

Honesty only worked for so long for my grandfather. 


He served for 20+ years in the Montana State House and Senate.  He was the senate majority leader and president of the Montana State Senate in 1985 and 1987. 


Being a child of depression and the grandson of Irish Catholic immigrants, he was a strong Roosevelt/New Deal style Democrat.  He believed that government had a responsibility to care for the poorest of the poor and smartly run government action had the potential to accomplish great things.  This belief was balanced by his suspicion of totalitarianism, both the left and right variety, a force he had spent some time confronting in the Pacific Theater during WWII.  He was a reluctant participant in government at first, though his anti-war stance during the Vietnam war eventually enlivened him and a consistency was built around both his political stance and his charismatic personality, along with the insistence of Mike Mansfield (the then powerful senator from Montana) that he run for office.  After working his way through the house of representatives, he won a senate seat and continued to rise among the state democrats throughout the late 1970's and early 1980's.  During his position as President of the Senate and Majority leader, he enjoyed the benefit of great political momentum as the Democrats held the majority of political positions in state government, even the Governor was a Democrat. 

Despite a victory in the 1986 election and his position within the state democratic party, one point of honesty had the ability to excise all support from the (what was then) the liberal wing of the democratic party, and hence support from the statewide democratic organization. 

As I mentioned, my grandfather came from a strong Irish Catholic background.  This mindset worked well for the Democratic party when my grandfather's positions agreed with their positions on social reform.  It also helped that his age, as a New Deal inspired democrat, helped tie him to traditional Democratic platforms, a great help for Democrats during this time in history.  It also helped the Democrats that my grandfather hailed from a hardscrabble background and had ascended through the ranks through a populist agenda. 

One thing that didn't help my grandfather earn any favors in the party was his stance on abortion. 

By 1990 it was intolerable for anyone in the local (read Missoula, the most leftist population center in Montana) Democratic party to be affiliated with a pro-life stance.  Despite his participation in most every other Democratic platform item (at the time), the party pulled all of their funding for his campaign based on this one issue.  My grandfather, honest about his stance and unwilling to change his rhetoric to tow the party line, lost in the primary that year to a candidate who only served one term before being ousted by a Republican ascendancy in 1994 (What happened that year nationally also happened here).

This was my first experience with single issue political support. 


My point, after the long preamble, is that honesty is only effective in a political system that is democratically oriented.  Our best guess, at this point, is that one of the two sides will represent us more efficiently than the other.  Unfortunately, if we are intellectually honest with ourselves, most of us will realize that neither of the two parties represent our political aspirations.


So where does that leave us?  Well, since the 1960's, the dominant choice has been to stick doggedly to "liberal" or "conservative" politics.  Conveniently, the two party system (as it stands currently) has been all too accommodating in its ability to adapt to this dichotomy and use it towards it's advantage.  We are losing the race as a constituency because we are unable to define the course of the debate.  The perimeters are defined by the social elite and we line up accordingly based on our persuasions. 



So what do I value as a virtue in a politician?     

Honesty.


Just doesn't pay well.

[spaced]

i value not being a politician. seriously. show me someone who's running for office without ulterior motives (that is, they genuinely want to serve the public) and i'll show you someone who's about to lose. i hate politics and, to a certain extent, anyone who cares about them. fuck democrats, fuck republicans. the blind loyalty to these parties is what's ruined our system

It's not blind loyalty that's fucking over our system, it's ignorance. Your average voter doesn't know shit about anything related to public policy, so they just vote for the guy with the R or D next to his name. They wouldn't be nearly as loyal and down-the-line partisan if they had actual informed opinions about things, but becoming versed in issues beyond the bumper-sticker stage requires a ton of effort.

I voted today, and beforehand I spent a lot of time reading the full text of all of the local ballot initiatives, researching their implications, writing down which number were for which initiatives, etc., I followed the major races and watched debates, but for all the time I put in, even I still had no idea who the fuck to vote for for State Treasurer, or Mine Inspector or whatever. And for everyone like me, there are probably ten people who didn't even know who their Senate candidates were until they looked at the ballot.

Thing is, it's always been like this, because it just makes no sense for people to become informed. From a purely rational perspective, it's actually kind of dumb for people to spend hours and hours making sure their one vote (out of several million) reflects their considered judgments about politics. The tiny effect that their vote will have on the outcome probably isn't really worth the large amount of time it takes to inform themselves about the issues and figure out where they stand.

Hence, they just see an R or a D and fill in the little bubble. Same as it ever was.

So, to answer the original question, my answer would be: not dumbing down your position and pandering to the lowest common denominator. If more politicians did this, it would make the work of becoming an informed citizen much, much easier, meaning that elections would be more about ideas and job performance and less about how many TV commercials you can buy.

/steps off soapbox

[spaced]

Also, great post, nab (looks like you posted it while I was writing mine). Thanks for sharing your grandfather's story, and I agree with pretty much everything you said.

[ytowndan]

Well said, nab.  And I agree. 

[guyforget]

i value not being a politician. seriously. show me someone who's running for office without ulterior motives (that is, they genuinely want to serve the public) and i'll show you someone who's about to lose. i hate politics and, to a certain extent, anyone who cares about them. fuck democrats, fuck republicans. the blind loyalty to these parties is what's ruined our system

It's not blind loyalty that's fucking over our system, it's ignorance. Your average voter doesn't know shit about anything related to public policy, so they just vote for the guy with the R or D next to his name. They wouldn't be nearly as loyal and down-the-line partisan if they had actual informed opinions about things, but becoming versed in issues beyond the bumper-sticker stage requires a ton of effort.

I voted today, and beforehand I spent a lot of time reading the full text of all of the local ballot initiatives, researching their implications, writing down which number were for which initiatives, etc., I followed the major races and watched debates, but for all the time I put in, even I still had no idea who the fuck to vote for for State Treasurer, or Mine Inspector or whatever. And for everyone like me, there are probably ten people who didn't even know who their Senate candidates were until they looked at the ballot.

Thing is, it's always been like this, because it just makes no sense for people to become informed. From a purely rational perspective, it's actually kind of dumb for people to spend hours and hours making sure their one vote (out of several million) reflects their considered judgments about politics. The tiny effect that their vote will have on the outcome probably isn't really worth the large amount of time it takes to inform themselves about the issues and figure out where they stand.

Hence, they just see an R or a D and fill in the little bubble. Same as it ever was.

So, to answer the original question, my answer would be: not dumbing down your position and pandering to the lowest common denominator. If more politicians did this, it would make the work of becoming an informed citizen much, much easier, meaning that elections would be more about ideas and job performance and less about how many TV commercials you can buy.

/steps off soapbox

you mention two things here -

ballot initiatives are one thing, and you cant vote r or do on them, just yes or no, right? 

my opinion is that in terms of federal elections, SPECIFICALLY, a lot of time, simply voting r or d does have a significant impact, if you support that party's platform, and the more rigidly you support the platform, the more effective simply voting r or d could be.  lets face it, candidates dont get to do much individually once elected.  barack obama would be my first case in point.  2nd, how about scott brown?  the thing is, simply, that its REALLY hard to change the landscape in dc, its so stuck in its own mire.  but, more often than not, changing the landscape is more a result of changing the makup of congress, which can be done by simply voting r or d and figuring that more often than not, that person is going to have to tow the party line. 

[sls.stormyrider]

Seems to me nab that the real losers were the people of Minnesota, although it sucked for your GF (sounds like quite the guy).

single issue politics and soundbites are among the biggest problems with our system. They are allowed to succeed because of an electorate that isn't as informed as it (we) should be.

[spaced]

ballot initiatives are one thing, and you cant vote r or do on them, just yes or no, right? 

Yes, I was just using the whole "r or d" thing as an example of voting by making snap judgments rather than being informed, which you can definitely do with ballot propositions.

my opinion is that in terms of federal elections, SPECIFICALLY, a lot of time, simply voting r or d does have a significant impact, if you support that party's platform, and the more rigidly you support the platform, the more effective simply voting r or d could be.  lets face it, candidates dont get to do much individually once elected.  barack obama would be my first case in point.  2nd, how about scott brown?  the thing is, simply, that its REALLY hard to change the landscape in dc, its so stuck in its own mire.  but, more often than not, changing the landscape is more a result of changing the makup of congress, which can be done by simply voting r or d and figuring that more often than not, that person is going to have to tow the party line.

Oh, I agree with you, this was pretty much my point. It only makes sense for people to vote a straight party line ticket, since most people agree with one party or another on almost every issue. My post was in response to phil's complaint about this very situation. I think that the less people think about policy and the more they buy into the soundbite/bumpersticker formulation of issues, the less ideological variety we have, and the easier it is for bad candidates to get elected just based on party affiliation.

[aphineday]

 :shakehead:  This is pretty depressing that we have to mention honesty as a virtue in a politician. There aren't many more honest people left. Joe Biden is about the only one I know. You may not like what he has to say, but he'll give it to you straight.