You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Tech, Politics, Terror, and Everything In Between
It's a very interesting and well done post. I will comment, however, that "before 1991, like a generation or two back, politicians or statesmen were admired and their credibility and leadership was not put in doubt," is a false statement. The magical/cursed time when politicians weren't questioned, doubted, dragged through the mud? Never happened. Wasn't true in the old Greek democracy, wasn't true the second the USA and then France reinvented it.
Just to clarify, that's a quote from Giddens. I guess how I interpret it is that someone like Donald Trump couldn't have been considered for presidency prior to the consumerization of politics. Once the fine line between being a politician and being a celebrity is blurred; once the fine line between a presidential election and reality tv is blurred then politicians start being measured on popularity, and their popularity is not necessarily dependent on their achievements. They become a commodity simply measured on how much it can sell, in this case, votes. Was that always the case? Maybe.
I do think that this process has intensified over the years and I do think that it would be hard to compare the politicians of today with the likes of Churchill, FDR, Golda, Ben Gurion, Rabin, etc. They had an agenda and would not change it (too much) for more votes.
Now, that being said, who am I to say that the politicians of then were better or more moral than current ones. It's all relevant and some may see current politicians as an improvement. I will also agree that politicians were never liked and they always had their haters but "the office" or the political institution garnered more respect than it does today. That could be because the politicians are worse or just because we are more educated about what goes on behind the scenes...
Are you familiar with the musical Hamilton? And, more importantly, the history behind it? Aaron Burr, America's 3rd Vice President who almost became the second President, spent his entire political career not taking any strong political stance. He relied on his eloquence, and charm, and on basically inventing active political campaigning.
We remember leaders with strong convictions better. Like them or not - and I have either a strong dislike or mixed feelings for everyone on your list except FDR - they stand out.
And. sure, Trump is an edge case. But Warren G. Harding wasn't a gem, either. And his presidency was absolutely mired in controversy and corruption. And that's at the presidential level. On the local level? Corruption has always loomed large. The Godfather, in 1972, portrayed senators as working directly for the mob, because some DID.
And who was a bigger celebrity in America following the revolutionary war than George Washington? He ended up being a great - if flawed - statesman, but he won the elections because he was good at fighting, as did Eisenhower, much later.
The tools of today are different, more immediate. But politicians were throwing verbal feces at each other in newspapers from the late 16th century onwards.
I would argue that Ronald Reagen was a terrible president, who suffered from dementia for much of his presidency. He won his second term by a landslide and is still considered a political god on the right. Because he had charisma, and a soothing voice, and happened to be around when the USSR was collapsing. Never mind that he willfully chose to ignore the AIDS crisis because "icky gays," or that his administration was doing shady deals with tyrants.
All of this is not to say that Donald Trump isn't a unique case. But there were very specific circumstances that lead to his win.
If the Supreme Court hadn't decided the Voting Rights Act wasn't really needed anymore? He would have probably lost.
If Russia hadn't undermined the elections through actual fake news? He would have probably lost.
If the FBI had released information about investigating his campaign when they released information about investigating Clinton's campaign? He would have probably lost.
If Comey hadn't sent that letter to Congress mere days before the elections? He would have probably lost.
And with all of that? He still lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.
So, what I'm saying here is that there was a confluence of events, some of them (the FBI's actions in particular) massively affected by the consensus that he couldn't possibly win, that lead to Trump winning.
You make very good point that I have no argument with. It's true that there were "bad" politicians way before 1991. It's also probably true that Trump would have never won if it wasn't for a lot of things aligning in a way that set him up for the presidency.
However, The media tends to focus on the scandalous and the simplistic. It's all true but what really contributed to Trump's rise in the polls to the point that he could even be considered a political candidate was not Russian ad campaigns on Facebook, the FBI, or the Supreme Court. It was growing public opinion that supported his claims that a change was necessary in Washington DC. Manay American found that message to resonate with their own beliefs, especially when made by an "outsider".
Also, consider that he still beat all of the other Republican candidates. That says something. He still got millions of Americans to vote for him and that says something too.
It's also similar to what is happening in Europe, which I think is rooted in a general lack of confidence that the public has for their politicians.
A recent survey by The PEW, found that public trust in the government remains near historic lows. Only 18% of Americans today say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (3%) or “most of the time” (15%).
While you may be right that, if we judge on merit, the politicians of old were no better than the politicians of new and vice versa. But, in the court of public perception there is a shift that is hard to ignore.