Is there such a thing as an honest politician?
A politician is defined as someone skilled in the art or science of government, a person engaged in party politics or a person who holds political office. The previous were the basic positive definitions of what a politician is.
Each resource also specified a politician as a person interested in political office for selfish or other short-sighted reasons, one who is more concerned about gaining favor or retention of power than about maintaining principals or one who engages in politics purely for party goals or for their own advantage. According to this information a politician is not an honest person and more specifically the term politician is typically a derogatory term.
On the other side of the spectrum is the term statesman which is basically defined as a prominent distinguished person of high repute. A statesman is also noted as being a patriotic and unselfish person with great foresight who deals in the affairs of state.
Who is the most recent true statesman that has worked for the betterment of our Country? How many true statesmen have we actually had in the history of our government? Now before any of you begin to consider this question or research it I will make one disparaging note about our founding Father Ben Franklin.
Ben Franklin was initially a printer and he began participating in politics for the sole reason of obtaining the printing contract for Pennsylvania’s currency. Furthermore he also used his position as postmaster to obtain information from other places before rival printers could thereby increasing his business and along the way built a massive network of news contacts which gave him tremendous influence.
For a honest politician to be elected they must actually exist first and considering the common definition of what a politician is there is no such thing as a honest politician.
In considering the current state of our government it would be truly remarkable if a decent upstanding person were to be elected to a high office and remain untainted during their tenure. There is no such thing as an untainted truly honest politician and there probably never has been.
For the most part all of our politicians are masters of redirection and illusion. Very few if any of their actions are for the good of this country while not entailing some type of personal gain for themselves or their colleagues.
Honest Politician!
This is almost like a reverse rhetorical question. Like a "does the bear do his business in the woods" kind of query that has one obvious answer. An "Honest Politician" is like an oxymoron. You can be one or the other but both is too hard to reconcile. They're like jumbo shrimp. It's a funny idea to us. An honest politician!? How bizarre!
As written this question has only one answer. Of course honest politicians get elected. The fact that we even ask the question is an serious indictment of our ever-deepening cynicism. And it’s not healthy. It implies that we view honesty as a bad character trait somehow. It demonstrates we innately don't trust anyone when it comes to certain authorities and figures anymore.
If you don't believe an "Honest Politician" can't get elected it means you do believe that all politicians are inherently dishonest. That is just too cynical an assumption for words. Answering "No" says you think that being honest is a bad thing. One way or another, A "No" looks worse on the voters than on the politician
The concept is as strange as Bigfoot and just as unbelievable. Honest politicians are discussed like we are talking about something that is only theoretical. Is there even such thing as an honest polition at all? We think being dishonest is a good skill that every politician should practice. You can't get elected to office if you’re honest. That's a no-no.If anything an honest politician is at least considered unusual. When you hear of one your first thought is "Wow How weird...? Comments such as, "Hey! This guy just might not be a liar!” are expressed with admiration and congratulations. Like he worked hard to learn to be honest, He puts honesty on his resume.
To say an honest man can't win you have to believe that corruption is expected in politicians as a job requirement. Basically your saying if you're honest man you won't be too good for the job. Politicians are viewed as suspicious in the way that suggests honesty is too good to be true in a person who wants to be a politician
It seems we've reached the point where we don't see honest guys as politicians. Honest guys are nice guys and they finish last. We want our politician to be winners. Winners aren't nice. We sort of like to say that our guy "Well he's not exactly dishonest... but he's sneaky"
But when you ask, "Can being honest be a disadvantage". That's a different perspective. And it's a pretty revealing glimpse of how we see "Honest".
Being honest is easy. Most people are honest and don't get much credit because its normal. It's assumed. We aren't asked to prove it too often. But it often does in the life of a politician. "Looking honest" is a much different subject. It's where the moral issues and the campaigning image can often conflict. It depends on how important issue of honesty is to getting the office... and how honest the politician really is.
If it means an edge in votes proving to the voters that you are honest can be important. Politicians need to use the Media to paint an image in voters’ minds. In a way and to a degree the voter can relate too. But living up to the image is a serious challenge. Especially for politicians that stake their moral platform too much on honesty; When they start using it as a character trait rather than a political issue.
Claims of exceptional honesty will undergo intense scrutiny. Insisting that honesty is part of the campaign forces you to prove why you’re as or even more honest than the other guy. Making honesty a personal; challenge can matter in the race. Something as simple as a missed tax payment or mortgage bill can be political suicide. Political images can be seriously damaged by the accusation more than the crime.
The answer to the question is an obvious "yes" that somehow still seems like the wrong answer. The wrong being that we've become so jaded that we see all candidates as routinely dishonest. New candidates have a harder time starting out as it is and they're already considered suspect. it’s a tough job for the most pious soul. You are fighting a steeled perception already in place As far as the average voter is concerned you're not an honest man to begin with.
It's important for our society to avoid such judgmental and stereotypical thinking. Honest guys get elected all the time. It's foolish and destructive for us to look at all politicians as used car sales men or con artists, corrupt and unseemly. It's an extremely negative mindset that makes being honest an option as opposed to a requirement in our representatives.
It's also a pretty dismal portrait of us when we start interpreting a positive moral value as a handicap.
Compiled by: Draiman for Clean Los Angeles
Each resource also specified a politician as a person interested in political office for selfish or other short-sighted reasons, one who is more concerned about gaining favor or retention of power than about maintaining principals or one who engages in politics purely for party goals or for their own advantage. According to this information a politician is not an honest person and more specifically the term politician is typically a derogatory term.
On the other side of the spectrum is the term statesman which is basically defined as a prominent distinguished person of high repute. A statesman is also noted as being a patriotic and unselfish person with great foresight who deals in the affairs of state.
Who is the most recent true statesman that has worked for the betterment of our Country? How many true statesmen have we actually had in the history of our government? Now before any of you begin to consider this question or research it I will make one disparaging note about our founding Father Ben Franklin.
Ben Franklin was initially a printer and he began participating in politics for the sole reason of obtaining the printing contract for Pennsylvania’s currency. Furthermore he also used his position as postmaster to obtain information from other places before rival printers could thereby increasing his business and along the way built a massive network of news contacts which gave him tremendous influence.
For a honest politician to be elected they must actually exist first and considering the common definition of what a politician is there is no such thing as a honest politician.
In considering the current state of our government it would be truly remarkable if a decent upstanding person were to be elected to a high office and remain untainted during their tenure. There is no such thing as an untainted truly honest politician and there probably never has been.
For the most part all of our politicians are masters of redirection and illusion. Very few if any of their actions are for the good of this country while not entailing some type of personal gain for themselves or their colleagues.
Honest Politician!
This is almost like a reverse rhetorical question. Like a "does the bear do his business in the woods" kind of query that has one obvious answer. An "Honest Politician" is like an oxymoron. You can be one or the other but both is too hard to reconcile. They're like jumbo shrimp. It's a funny idea to us. An honest politician!? How bizarre!
As written this question has only one answer. Of course honest politicians get elected. The fact that we even ask the question is an serious indictment of our ever-deepening cynicism. And it’s not healthy. It implies that we view honesty as a bad character trait somehow. It demonstrates we innately don't trust anyone when it comes to certain authorities and figures anymore.
If you don't believe an "Honest Politician" can't get elected it means you do believe that all politicians are inherently dishonest. That is just too cynical an assumption for words. Answering "No" says you think that being honest is a bad thing. One way or another, A "No" looks worse on the voters than on the politician
The concept is as strange as Bigfoot and just as unbelievable. Honest politicians are discussed like we are talking about something that is only theoretical. Is there even such thing as an honest polition at all? We think being dishonest is a good skill that every politician should practice. You can't get elected to office if you’re honest. That's a no-no.If anything an honest politician is at least considered unusual. When you hear of one your first thought is "Wow How weird...? Comments such as, "Hey! This guy just might not be a liar!” are expressed with admiration and congratulations. Like he worked hard to learn to be honest, He puts honesty on his resume.
To say an honest man can't win you have to believe that corruption is expected in politicians as a job requirement. Basically your saying if you're honest man you won't be too good for the job. Politicians are viewed as suspicious in the way that suggests honesty is too good to be true in a person who wants to be a politician
It seems we've reached the point where we don't see honest guys as politicians. Honest guys are nice guys and they finish last. We want our politician to be winners. Winners aren't nice. We sort of like to say that our guy "Well he's not exactly dishonest... but he's sneaky"
But when you ask, "Can being honest be a disadvantage". That's a different perspective. And it's a pretty revealing glimpse of how we see "Honest".
Being honest is easy. Most people are honest and don't get much credit because its normal. It's assumed. We aren't asked to prove it too often. But it often does in the life of a politician. "Looking honest" is a much different subject. It's where the moral issues and the campaigning image can often conflict. It depends on how important issue of honesty is to getting the office... and how honest the politician really is.
If it means an edge in votes proving to the voters that you are honest can be important. Politicians need to use the Media to paint an image in voters’ minds. In a way and to a degree the voter can relate too. But living up to the image is a serious challenge. Especially for politicians that stake their moral platform too much on honesty; When they start using it as a character trait rather than a political issue.
Claims of exceptional honesty will undergo intense scrutiny. Insisting that honesty is part of the campaign forces you to prove why you’re as or even more honest than the other guy. Making honesty a personal; challenge can matter in the race. Something as simple as a missed tax payment or mortgage bill can be political suicide. Political images can be seriously damaged by the accusation more than the crime.
The answer to the question is an obvious "yes" that somehow still seems like the wrong answer. The wrong being that we've become so jaded that we see all candidates as routinely dishonest. New candidates have a harder time starting out as it is and they're already considered suspect. it’s a tough job for the most pious soul. You are fighting a steeled perception already in place As far as the average voter is concerned you're not an honest man to begin with.
It's important for our society to avoid such judgmental and stereotypical thinking. Honest guys get elected all the time. It's foolish and destructive for us to look at all politicians as used car sales men or con artists, corrupt and unseemly. It's an extremely negative mindset that makes being honest an option as opposed to a requirement in our representatives.
It's also a pretty dismal portrait of us when we start interpreting a positive moral value as a handicap.
Compiled by: Draiman for Clean Los Angeles
