I Never Thought of Politics This Way

[Love And Submission]

Don't just blame the politicians, it's the people who got them elected.  There's a ton of people voting for Huckabee just because he's an Evangelical Christian, Hillary just because she's a woman, Obama just because he's black, and so on.

Yeah. That's total garbage. Black People didn't vote for Obama because he was black. They voted for him because Mitt Romney was incompetent when it came to the Issues facing  Black America. Which isn't really that different many republican politicians really.

If  a majority or a significant  portion of Blacks only voted for Blacks then why would  didn't they  vote  for Alan Keyes and Herman Cain or even Jessie Jackson in 1984?

The same thing with women. If people  are willing to vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman why didn't they vote for Sarah Palin  , Michelle Bachman or Geraldine  Ferraro?

[Valthazar]

Yeah. That's total garbage. Black People didn't vote for Obama because he was black. They voted for him because Mitt Romney was incompetent when it came to the Issues facing  Black America. Which isn't really that different many republican politicians really.

Please don't misinterpret what I am saying.

Regardless of sub-group, many Americans simply lack the knowledge to have an honest dialogue on foreign affairs and economics issues.  The political/media conglomerates (of both Democrats and Republicans) realize this, and they realize that the best way to "get votes" is to focus on unrelated (yet certainly very important) side issues - often social issues  -- (Abortion, Gay Rights, Racism, Sexism, etc.)

It's much easier to engage an 18-year-old kid in the political process through "politicized" social campaigns, rather than meaningful discourse on global affairs/public policy.  For example, don't get me wrong, gay marriage is a very important equality issue for many.  But getting this 18-25 demographic to put a picture of an "equals" sign on their Facebook profile is an easy way for the Democratic party to get support among its otherwise 'less-politically-inclined' demographic.  On the same token, church preachers who warn attendants about "the government's attack on religion" is a way for the Republican party to get support among its otherwise 'less-politically-inclined' target demographic.

This manifests itself with some of the trends I mentioned in my earlier post.  Many of the less-informed segments of each voting demographic will tend to align themselves with a candidate based on likeability. 

Some of the hockey moms who may be less-informed on political issues may tend to vote for Palin purely because she's a woman they can relate to.

Some of the more urban women who may be less-informed on political issues may tend to vote for Hillary purely because she is a socially progressive woman.

And on that token, some African-American voters who may be less-informed on political issues voted for Obama purely because he is a black man.

[Retribution]

Hmm, as the OP I see the point I was trying to make seems to have gotten a bit lost. So let me take a stab at it even though the points raised above are indeed valid. This just happens to be a place with a nice lead in point. Idealism and doing the right thing because it is right is a wonderful concept. I think most people try and follow that concept in their own way. Hell, I honestly think most corrupt politicians honestly do not believe they are corrupt the system has just twisted their perspectives. Sort of like when one passes the bar j/k my lawyer friends.

But we all bring our own perceptions and perspectives to the table. That can color our thoughts from the angle of race, sexual orientation, take your pick. But well idealism is a bit naive in any system around the world and not even close to realistic. So lets look at the current political system which I think we all agree is gridlocked. The districts are gerrymandered so that when one goes home to get the vote they face a voting block of slanted perspective whatever that perspective may be. There is no incentive to compromise with someone who is politically perceived at home as "the enemy." If they compromise then back home in that gerrymandered district they will be defeated next election by someone who refuses to compromise. The gridlock continues.

Now when we had more pork there was an incentive. You help me out on this vote and then I will help you out on this one. When you go back home then you can say I may have voted for this, but I brought this road project home to my district. It fixed a bad road and provided construction jobs so on..... Something actually moved in the political process instead of heels dug in. This applies on national elections and such as well because do not think the candidates do not study voting blocks and so on to see what they need to win.

So I guess what I am saying is within reason I think maybe a little more greasing and cajoling with various projects might indeed be helpful to actually getting some middle ground accomplishments. Look at the poles, this country on most issues is divided nearly 50/50 down the middle and we are at one another's throats in this age of big media. Sure we would all love our politicians and rulers to be pictures of virtue. But I honestly do not think that is happening anytime in the future.

[Tairis]

The combination of brinksmanship politics and, most importantly, the mass media is by far our largest problem. We're now in the day and age when any compromise spawns outrage from one major news network or the other while we let those same networks dictate who 'gets' to be a presidential candidate by refusing to provide coverage to anyone that isn't mainstream.

Until you unlatch the jaws from around the throat of the political process nothing will change.

[Valthazar]

I agree with Tairis that it is the media which is the biggest culprit.  I know most people here on E can see through the "gotcha" style of reporting from both the Democrats and Republicans, but most Americans take what they hear at face-value.  There's always going to be an idiotic statement/action made by one politician or another, that the media blows up to represent the entire party, and ultimately divide us completely.

When Weiner decided to send those inappropriate pictures, the Republican establishment turned it into an issue of the Democrats lacking family values.

On the other hand, when Huckabee decided to idiotically state that birth control was only necessary from the government because of women's uncontrollable libido, the Democratic establishment turned it into an issue of the GOP being socially out of touch.

Neither issue has anything to do with the economy, jobs, or the budget, but for the average person, that's what politics is.

[Moondazed]

Seems to me that as long as the campaign contributions are largely corporate and/or opaque, and the politicians are wealthy and many have no idea what it's like to actually struggle to achieve the American dream, this country is going to continue down its current path of income disparity because let's face it, powerful people aren't going to vote against their own best interests when there are such effective political spin machines convincing people to vote against their own best interests.

I'm a BIG fan of integrity and I have little respect for bullying in any form.  That said, I'd have had more respect for Christie if he took responsibility for what his administration did rather than throwing them under the bus.  My respect clearly doesn't garner votes, though. :)

[Neysha]

But how would you like to see him take responsibility?  ;)

By admitting that he master minded the Bridge delays (assuming that he is responsible for the delays) or by some other act regardless of his relationship to the incident at hand?

[Moondazed]

Something other than feigned indignation would be refreshing. :)

[TheGlyphstone]

"I am shocked, shocked, to find corruption in this administration!"

"Your campaign contributions, sir."

"Oh, thank you very much."