Why is it popular to hate politicians?

I'm just curious. You see jokes about politicians all being corrupt, and there are all kinds of famous quotes about how terribad politics are. Why?

Almost all politicians went to grad school, and in my book that makes them smarter than most anyone who hasn't gone to grad school (call me crazy), yet those same people, who rarely if ever actually know anything about politics, are talking down on them!

Why has this belief pervaded so far into the popular psyche?

Still Sheepin'

The stereotype of politicians is that they get into positions of power for their own gain rather than the good of John Q. Public.

Somehow you know that the time is right.

But that's not always true, and is probably fairly rare, from my experience.

Still Sheepin'

Yeah, but whether it's true is irrelevant. The image is branded fairly well into the public consciousness and people will act accordingly.

Somehow you know that the time is right.

A lot of them get paid far too much for what they do, many of them are born well off, and then there are all the secrets they tend to keep from the populace as part of their job. And while not the easiest job out there, it's easy to see that they don't do all that much. Add in the whole "power corrupt" tidbit and there's all the reason a good majority will ever need to distrust politicians. There are a few honest ones, but they never achieve anything big enough to overshadow the more commonly bad ones.

Not to mention, many politicians can affect the populace's life with their decisions, with minimal changes to their own.

Not a nice combination if you want a likable career.

edited 16th Aug '11 2:06:14 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Yes, but why?

Politicians do a lot. Just because they're upper class and have white-collar jobs doesn't mean there's no work to do. And even though most of their work is towards getting themselves more power, the reason they want that power is almost universally so they can make the world a better place. There aren't any children growing up, dreaming about the day they can oppress the masses. They go into Law School so they can change the world, make their mark, and try to make the general masses' lives better.

Hell, even Mussolini, Stalin, and yes, Hitler, were trying to make their populace happier. Whether or not they were misguided, and most probably insane, they were trying to do the right thing. And these are the people the masses hate. These are probably the worst people who lived in the last hundred years, and they still wanted to make everyone happier.

Still Sheepin'

Because they are still as being out of touch people who have their mouth in the trough.

Dutch Lesbian

Because unfortunately, people remember the bad politicians (i.e., the ones closer to the stereotype) more than the good ones. There's a saying about that, but I forget it.

Somehow you know that the time is right.

^^^ It's a lot more realistic to believe they want to get as high as possible for more $$ and stability.

That said, even with the ones who genuinely want to do good, many of them are so out of touch with normal people because of their class and occupation.

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

When politicians do good things, they better be Jesus otherwise the bad news will take the front page.

The problem with politicians is that no matter what they do, someone is going to think they're the antichrist for what they do to try to help people, or they actually do something that is popular, but a very, very dick move when you think about it.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

I think it's just easy.

Certainly there's more bad politicians than there are good (mostly because it's really hard to choose the policy that will actually help your country when most of them are picking it out of a hat because they're not omnipresent).

On the other side of it, I find bad politicians encourage the view of hating politicians. It gets them more power.

You know what is hard? Studying issues, figuring out what will work for your country, voting with that in mind and if you find that it didn't work very well, you accept that and change your voting pattern while maintaining your due diligence and without losing faith. That's hard. You, working alone, doing what you need to do to make the system better and just have to keep doing it on the off-chance others will do that with you to force good change in the system.

It is my experience that the longer a politician is in a position of power, the worse they will get. This is why we swap them around every few years. Give them a break from power and let them get back in touch with the common folk.

Then again hating politicians has been in a American tradition since we were founded as a nation so it isn't a new thing but with all this new media we are taking it up to an art form.

edited 16th Aug '11 3:01:51 PM by jazzflower14

Politicians are responsible for enacting everything that's wrong with government.

Fight smart, not fair.

Because a politician is, more or less, a dick by definition. I use statesman to mean "a public leader that actually does his/her job well" and politician to mean "dick in a suit paid for by corporations/unions/special interests/the rich/etc."

That's just me, though...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Because the word 'politics' comes from the root words 'poly' meaning many, and 'ticks' which are small bloodsucking creatures.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Not that I haven't independently come up with that one, but it is still funny.

In seriousness to the topic at hand, it's because they just go on and on arguing all day rather than actually sit down and try to get stuff done. Plus, they tend to come off as pretty sleazy overall, since so much of their time is spent campaigning and pandering to try to stay in power, instead of worrying about the plight of those of us who don't have a plush government job.

This may be the first time I've ever seen someone make a point, and then immediately refute it within their own argument.

Besides the 90% failure rate of any argument that invokes Godwin's Law, it's pretty incorrect. These people you mentioned had little to no interest in making people happy; they wanted to stay in power, by any means necessary. Yes, they had supporters, only because these supporters supported the idea or proposed result that said leader would propose. Not everyone liked these ideas, which is why the supporters supported the leader they were supporting: they would benefit from the end result! This remains true in any political system: supporters support a certain leader or certain proposals because they will directly benefit from it, and the leaders proposing it do so to either remain in power or to exert their ideas of how a better society would be run in a given region.

Anyone in a position of power, regardless of how they got there, will do anything to stay in that position of power. The happiness of the populace, in this case the people that would benefit or not from decisions made, come in second (optimistically). Hell, even before the happiness of the general public comes the happiness of financial backers, more prominent supporters (or supporters with a great deal more power than your average Joe), as well as other powerful or wealthy people, organizations, or corporations that may provide substantial benefits in the future (if they don't already do so for the politician in question already). And let's not forget about making the party that votes for you happy as well, since without their votes, you can't stay in such a position of power.

In short, politicians are, in most cases, whores in expensive suits, and they've done very little to change this outlook from the media.

Take what I say with some salt, as I'm not a wealth of information concerning politics.

edited 16th Aug '11 5:20:58 PM by Newfable

@Deboss Politicians are also responsible for the good parts they bring too.

No, that would be the statesmen. Calling the effective ones "politicians" is an insult.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Like how someone who rushes off to do something crazy and fails is a fool, but a hero when the accomplish it?

Largely speaking, yes. Such is why our country is so miserably degraded and falling to pieces. We haven't had a statesman to lead the country in 50 years.

I am now known as Flyboy.

These people you mentioned had little to no interest in making people happy; they wanted to stay in power, by any means necessary.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

Why did Hitler commit genocide? Because the Jews/Gypsies/Other Undesirables were dragging his society down. By taking them out of the system, the people would benefit.

Mussolini was a fascist. He had complete control over his country, and his police (brown shirts, iirc) kept everyone else in line. Why? Because they needed his protection to survive.

This remains true in any political system: supporters support a certain leader or certain proposals because they will directly benefit from it'

That's exactly the point of democracy. If everyone votes for what's best for themselves, then the thing most voted for must be the ideal solution (in theory). I happen to believe in Democracy, so even in non-democratic countries I think the leader with the most support is the ideal choice. When Mussolini was first coming in to power, he had the full support of his people. When he started going insane (I mean, Italy had a little bit where they were mildly succesful), he was kicked out of office and slaughtered in the least humane way possible. Democracy at its finest. (... What am I arguing here? I seem to have forgotten, but I think this point is pertinent. Hopefully it is.)

Anyone in a position of power, regardless of how they got there, will do anything to stay in that position of power.

That's not even true. George Washington could easily have stayed in power for decades, if not the remainder of his life. He didn't, because he wanted his new country to stay as free as possible. So he stayed in office for only four years, and that was really just because everyone told him to.

Still Sheepin'

There's a good number of higher ups in this country that believe that illegal immigrants are causing some problems for our nation. So, to that logic, genocide is a potential and very promising answer to that problem.

And yes, the democratic process will benefit those that voted for the winner, that much is obvious, and people will obviously vote for someone that promises benefits that said select voters would benefit from. The problem there is that, due to the thick party system in America, politicians will play to their party to ensure votes, instead of playing to the nation as a whole. But these politicians also have to play to their financial backers and other important supporters, regardless of party or benefits reaped from said politician receiving the position they are vying for. They have to play to a lot of people, because those people will help the politician get power, and keep it. Very few politicians care about the nation, caring more for the party that supports them.

Ideally and originally, a politician would make a proposal to the entire nation, even though said proposal wouldn't necessarily please everyone. They're either voted in or out, as democracy dictates. Recently, a politician is ensured votes if they play to the wants and desires of individuals of the country, who have separated themselves into two large parties wherein their wants, needs, and desires are clearly made known. Want to get on their good side? Give them what they want, even if what they want isn't necessarily good for the nation. Of course, that doesn't necessitate that any political party would want something bad for the nation, but that doesn’t matter to your average politician vying for a position of power.

4 years was the longest a President could stay in power, as dictated by the founding fathers (not too clear on that point, correct me if I'm wrong). Notice that I didn't mention that any politician will try to stay in office or a position of power for X years, because it's irrelevant. If someone can only stay in power for 2 terms, however long a term may be, they will do whatever they can to make sure that they're there for those 2 terms.

Ideally, candidates for presidency and other political positions would come forward, proposing ways to improve what they can given the powers of whatever position they're running for; voters would vote in whoever they thought would be best for improving whatever it is said political position can improve. Realistically, candidates for a political position come forward and play to the wants, needs, and desires to those that might vote for them to ensure those votes in order to increase the possibility of getting the political position they're running for; promises made to either political party is irrelevant, since there have been many cases in which a party voted in someone that would directly benefit the party that voted for them, only for said politician to fail to deliver on the wants, needs, or desires of the party members that voted him in in the first place.