Many of us believe that, at the core, people are driven to run for public office because of a thirst for power, prestige, and misguided vanity bordering on self-delusion. The German philosopher, Max Weber, once wrote for these politicians: "The sin against the lofty spirit of his vocation begins where this striving for power ceases to be objective and becomes purely personal self-intoxication, instead of exclusively entering the service of 'the cause.'"
These are unquestionably part of every politician's DNA. However, my experience is that in most cases at least, it is a very small part. The pre-eminent qualities for the politician are passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion, as Weber suggested.
A cynicism has seeped into our political culture that is blinding us to the nobility of elected public office and those with a genuine calling to serve. As citizens, we should reflect on the central part we play in the corrosive undermining of our democracy.
We've come to think of politicians as somehow a lesser species. More often than not, they are subject of ceaseless ridicule. Sometimes that is perfectly deserved, but mostly it's not.
Fuelled and often informed by a media that is far more interested in the contest than the content, we've come to view the political process and its practitioners as being entirely divorced from our reality. That is a largely unfair characterization. They certainly do represent different points of view and have varying levels of skill and competence. Most politicians do try their best to serve us because doing anything less is self-destructive.
The great irony is that we have become scornful of the very people whose mission it is to advance our collective well-being. Are politicians "only in it for themselves," to paraphrase the devastating and ridiculous personal attack ad on Michael Ignatieff? No they are not. Not even close. Our negative perceptions of politicians and the political process are ultimately at variance with our own self-interest.
A great majority of politicians have entered the arena because they care. Theirs is a profound desire to serve. They possess great pride in doing so in the elected councils of our democracy. When I ran last year, I was bursting with pride at the honour of even possibly sitting in the House of Commons, despite the fact that the campaign process itself was a less than honourable one, and usually rather demeaning.
Still, given the corrosive political age we are in, it's really difficult for some of us to comprehend why good people would sacrifice so much time away from their loved ones for an extended period of time. The life of a politician typically requires that you get used to being a human punching bag. You must feign indifference when scorned by the media and pretend to be impervious to hurtful insults and bullying by political opponents.
There's nothing remotely glamorous about any of it, unless you like seeing your name in the paper for that $8 scotch and soda hotel mini-bar charge. Of course, that well-deserved drink came after you put in a grueling 18-hour day on behalf of the people.
Which brings me to the race to become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. By my count, there are seven confirmed and potential candidates for the job that is, we can all agree, hardly a coveted one. That hasn't stopped these remarkable people from putting their lives on hold for six months and longer to try to get it. They are risking their professional standing, reputation, and financial stability -- not to mention the relationships with those they love the most.
Every one of these people is serious, accomplished, and sincere. They are business people, entrepreneurs, military officers, prosecutors, economists, teachers, and even an astronaut.
With the exception of the teacher and the astronaut, none have a national - or any - profile. That doesn't matter. What we owe these public servants is the respect of a meaningful hearing. All bring unique attributes and perspectives to our national conversation.
These aren't party hacks. Not a one. These are serious and dedicated people who love Canada and want to serve. They deserve our encouragement, attention, and also our admiration, respect, and thanks. They certainly have mine.
Follow Daniel D. Veniez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@danveniez
________________________________
Paragraph 5 (your point):
Most politicians do try their best to serve us because doing anything less is self-destructive.
My comment:
This sentence is inadvertently insightful. Politicians must in fact "try their best to serve us" simply because it is should be their primary objective to do so, and it is why they were elected in the first place ... not because it is potentially self-destructive not to do so.
_________________________________________
Paragraph 6: The great irony is that we have become scornful of the very people whose mission it is to advance our collective well-being. ... Our negative perceptions of politicians and the political process are ultimately at variance with our own self-interest.
My comment:
Obviously we believe these people start out with a mission "to advance our collective well-being". But when it later becomes apparent that in certain specific instances this may not be the case, the public has both a right and an obligation to say so. It is a simple case of expecting to receive what you bargained for. The ability of the public to observe performance and comment on it is analogous to an employer/employee relationship, and our ability to assess that performance is very much congruent with with "our own self-interest " rather than being at variance with it.
__________________________________________________
Paragraph 5 (your point): Most politicians do try their best to serve us because doing anything less is self-destructive.
My comment:
This sentence is inadvertently insightful. I believe politicians must in fact" try their best to serve us" simply because it is should be their primary objective to do so. It is why they were elected in the first place..
________________________________
Paragraph 8 (your point):
.... given the corrosive political age we are in, it's really difficult for some of us to comprehend why good people would sacrifice so much time away from their loved ones for an extended period of time. The life of a politician typically requires that you get used to being a human punching bag.
My comments:
The pay and perks are generally better than would otherwise be expected by most of these folks in another job (with some notable exceptions, like doctors and lawyers and so forth). It certainly beats working in a factory at minimum wage. And that's understood by those who run for office before they get elected. A politician's abilities are not hallmarks of privilege, they are bestowed by God and/or birth and/or DNA (take your pick, depending on your personal philosophy).
Paragraph 9 (your point): There's nothing remotely glamorous about any of it ...
My comment: Tell that to Christy Clark, the photo-op queen!
____________________
End of post
_______________________________
Paragraph 2 (your point):
A cynicism has seeped into our political culture that is blinding us to the nobility of elected public office and those with a genuine calling to serve. ... As citizens, we should reflect on the central part we play in the corrosive undermining of our democracy.
My comment:
How do these two phrases connect in the same sentence? "Noble" is an adjective attributed to aristocracy, rather to those who "serve". Legitimate criticism and appropriate allegation(s) that a politician is not acting in the public interest do not undermine democracy. On the contrary, such involvement by the public strengthens democracy rather than "undermines" it.
_____________________________________
Paragraph 3 (your point):
More often than not, (politicians) are subject of ceaseless ridicule. Sometimes that is perfectly deserved, but mostly it's not.
My comment:
The expression "ceaseless ridicule" is clearly hyperbolic. When a politician repeatedly and unapologetically acts in a fashion most regular folks would consider "sharp practice" then that politician, by virtue of his/her public office, invites public ridicule. When it is egregious behaviour, it should invite an official public inquiry.
_____________________________________
... to be continued ...
_____________________________________
Paragraph 7 (your point):
A great majority of politicians have entered the arena because they care. Theirs is a profound desire to serve. They possess great pride in doing so in the elected councils of our democracy.
My comments:
No one disputes that all politicians "care". The question is not whether they care, but what they care about. For first time office-holders, it's fair to assume that they care about meeting the expectations of their constituents. But as time passes and they find out it is a difficult job, fraught with perils because of big economic interests and powerful interst groups, not to mention paid lobbyists, they sometimes lose sight of their c onstituents expectations. They slip. The more they slip, the more they try to recover by proving themselves right. Eventuallly some of them lose sight of their original purpose, and it simply becomes a survival struggle. That's where their personal integrity gets challenged. And some don't pass the integrity test. Granted it's a minefield. But the public has (again) both the right and the obligation to comment on performance. Any other perspective on the reality of politics is naive at best, self-serving and dishonest at worst.
_______________________________
... to be continued ...
________________________________
Paragraph 6 (your point):
The great irony is that we have become scornful of the very people whose mission it is to advance our collective well-being. ... Our negative perceptions of politicians and the political process are ultimately at variance with our own self-interest.
My comments:
It is self-evident that we start out believing that these people understand their mission is "to advance our collective well-being" exactly because this is why we elected them in the first place. But as time pasees, when it becomes apparent that in certain specific instances this is not the case, the public has both a right and an obligation to say so. This has nothing to do with irony. It is a simple case of expecting to receive what you bargained for. The ability of the public to observe performance and comment on it is analogous to an employer/employee relationship, and our ability to assess that performance is very much congruent with with "our own self-interest " rather than being at variance with it.
________________________________
... to be continued ...
____________________________________________
Paragraph 4 (your comment):
Fuelled and often informed by a media that is far more interested in the contest than the content, we've come to view the political process and its practitioners as being entirely divorced from our reality. ... They (politicians) ... have varying levels of skill and competence.
My comments:
Interesting idea, but wrong. Skill and competence are entirely different personal attributes. By your reasoning, only approbation of public policy by the media is acceptable, and legitimate criticism is unacceptable.
Who gets to decide what is content and what is a contesting of public policy. Under what conditions is it democratically correct for the media to be muzzled when publishing legitimate public debate?
Most politicians are elected based on their skill in rhetoric, in convincing their constituents that they know what they are doing, and are trustworthy. Both a lack of integrity and a lack of competence to actually govern properly can be very effectively masked by excellect rhetorical skill.
Competence is crucial. Integrity more so. Some skills (like rhetorical skill) can at times be be counter-productive.
____________________________________________
_________________________________
Paragraph 1 (your point): The pre-eminent qualities for the politician are passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion.
My comment: Feelings are irrelevant. In a constitutional democracy the three absolutely pre-eminent qualities on the part of a politician are none of the above. Rather they are:
1. a deep commitment to always acting with absolute personal integrity; and
2. competence in governing in the public's best interest; and
3. unwavering recogition that public office is a trusteeship, not authority to "rule" without being answerable to the public who elected you.
_________________________________
.... to be continued ... (hopefully in next post) ....
It isn't the people going into politics that is the problem. The problem is voters. The voters listen to constant drivel about "PM bad, me good." Governments, instead of governing, are consumed with sniping by adversarial groups and parties. Why? Because the average voter is clueless. You can actually tell a person that party X is bad for them over and over again and that person believes it. Eventually, if the opponent doesn't fight back, the voter just votes against party X. Not only that but they are consumed with the desire to do so. They rationalize the decision but can never defend it.
All these good folks running for the leadership. Surrounded by sycophants, advocates, and adversaries. What do you think the first step is? Never take a strong stand on anything except opposing the adversary.
Do what is best for the country first and your interests last. Try that.
I know it's early days, but I really hope this isn't going to be the thrust of your party's message. As we know well, everybody says they're "open, honest, transparent and accountable", and then do whatever they want after we cast our ballot for "consent to rule" in this grand "democracy". It's getting a little stale.