Are you as disgusted with political campaigning as I am?
The lies and slurs are tiresome no matter who you like, because, as we all know, the other side always lies.
Some feel the lies and attacks are far worse than ever before and long to return to a more civilized political era, such as that of our founding fathers.
The good news is that the lies and attacks aren’t worse, just more frequent.
The bad news is that our founding fathers were as bad if not worse.
And the prime mud, then as now, involved race and religion.
In 1796 and 1800 John Adams supporters accused Thomas Jefferson of being “godless” as well as sleeping with a slave.
“God and a religious president, or Jefferson and no God!” (…) Jefferson versus Adams may also have the dubious distinction of being the first time the so-called race card was played.
As is frequently the case when it comes to politics, our perceptions about political election history are more a function of misconceptions colored by wishful thinking.
Here is the fourth installment of comments about politics; if you missed the previous ones you may find them here 1, 2, and 3. You’ll notice I named the third one “I Hate Politics 3,” which was actually an error, but one I like, so I’m going to continue using it.
Politicians come from varied backgrounds; in times past most were lawyers, but these days they are truly anything; or, as Robert Louis Stevenson so aptly puts it, Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary.
Gore Vidal adds a telling comment to that with which I totally agree, Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so.
As campaigns heat up the zingers always fly thicker and faster; one of the best came from Adlai Stevenson, in a 1952 campaign speech, I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.
Some lies never die (even when they should) and some of the nastiest seem to hang around forever (BTW, nasty isn’t a new trend as some seem to think, but more on that another week.) Our old friend Anonymous made a good point when he said, Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you.
It’s hard to argue with the wisdom of Will Rogers, especially this little gem, If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these acceptance speeches there wouldn’t be any inducement to go to heaven.
Have a great rest-of-the-weekend and I’ll see you tomorrow.
The conventions may be over, but the rhetoric is still going strong. Did you know it’s a requirement for politicians to have a PhD—which stands for ‘piled higher and deeper’—and that’s no bull. Adams and Lincoln never qualified as politicians, but both made it as statesmen.
Ambrose Bierce starts us out with a wonderful definition of politics, just so we’re all on the same page. “Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.”
Over the years I’ve read many descriptions of politicians and Congress, but John Adams provided my favorite when he said, “In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress”
The next quote is from Lincoln, “Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar,” but times have changed and it would be more accurate to say, “Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the dollar before the man.” Of course, it applies just as easily to Democrats.
Andy Borowitz offers our final insight today. I don’t know for sure when he said it, but it’s been applicable since before I could vote, “It would be nice to spend billions on schools and roads, but right now that money is desperately needed for political ads.”
(Did you miss the first two I Hate Politics? You can see them here and here.)
Anyone reading the news—local, national or global—knows that hate and intolerance are increasing at an alarming rate everywhere.
Also, because there have been/will be so many elections around the world this year ‘leadership’ is in the news even more so than usual.
What responsibility do leaders—business, political, religious, community—bear in fostering hate and intolerance?
A lot.
Not just the age old race and gender intolerance, but the I’m/we’re-RIGHT-so-you-should-do/think-our-way-or-else.
The ‘we’re right/you’re wrong’ attitude is as old as humanity and probably won’t ever change, but it’s the ‘do-it-our-way-or-else’ that shows the intolerance for what it really is.
And leaders aren’t helping; in fact, they are making it worse.
During my adult life (I missed being a Boomer by a hair) I’ve watched as hate and intolerance spread across the country masked by religion, a façade of political correctness or a mea culpa that is supposed to make everything OK, but doesn’t.
Various business, political, religious and community leaders give passionate, fiery talks to their followers and then express surprise and dismay when some of those same followers steal trade secrets, plant bombs, and kill individuals—whose only error was following their own beliefs.
We are no longer entitled to the pursuit of happiness if our happiness offends someone next door, the other end of the country, or the far side of the globe.
I remember Ann Rand saying in an interview that she believed that she had the right to be totally selfish, where upon the interviewer said that would give her freedom to kill.
Rand said absolutely not, in fact the reverse was true, since her selfishness couldn’t impinge anyone else’s right to be selfish.
Leaders aren’t responsible; we are because we go along with it—as did the Germans when Hitler led them down the hate and intolerance path.
Last year, when I had more time, I occasionally wrote for Technorati; this article was published there first.
Company vs. Societal Culture
There are many companies and other organizations that pride themselves on their diversity and the effective programs that opened opportunities for women, but are they effective in changing the way people actually think?
Not so much.
MIT is an excellent case study, especially since it was an MIT study 12 years ago that triggered many changes; not just in academia, but in the corporate world, too.
However, changing organizational culture is easy in comparison to changing societal attitudes.
Let me use a bit of personal history to illustrate.
In 1977 I joined MRI as a recruiter. Fortunately for me the manager with whom I interviewed left and it was his second in command who actually made the decision to hire me (his predecessor thought I was too pushy).
I was given a choice of two areas, insurance and telecom, and I chose telecom.
Telecom meant engineering and included military, e.g., microwave, RF, radar, etc. I worked telecom for 12 years, migrating from the military/industrial stuff to commercial voice and data. Another woman worked a biomedical desk.
Although we were both in the top producers circle all 12 years I can still remember other managers at the beginning asking my boss how he managed us and what he did if we cried. And the (usually) unstated assumption by male recruiters that we closed our deals by sleeping with the clients. (I found this hysterically funny considering the number of clients, most of mine on the East Coast, and the time required for the “visits.”)
Today the accusation is more general, that women are promoted because they are women, not because they are good at what they do.
“No one is getting tenure for diversity reasons, because the women themselves feel so strongly that the standards have to be maintained.” –Marc A. Kastner, Dean of the School of Science, MIT
When I am working with clients to change/shift their company’s culture I remind them that the most they can hope for is solid functional change. It is unlikely, if not impossible, that their efforts will actually change the way people think.
And I always remind them how far away we still are from Bella Abzug’s definition of success, although I must admit we are much closer to that reality in politics.
“Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel.”
This is the second set of political quotes (the first is here). I don’t know where you live, but I just received our 2012 Primary Voters’ pamphlet and it’s enough to make you weep. Granted, for years I’ve used my vote against someone I can’t stand as opposed to voting for someone I like, but there are some races that I can’t stand any of the candidates.
Before considering the candidates let’s give some thought to politics and politicians—conceptually, that is.
Oscar Ameringer provides a good basic definition to set the mood, “Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.”Wow; 25 words that say it all.
So how would you describe a politician?
According to Texas Guinan, “A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.”
Nikita Khrushchev reminds us that people aren’t that different no matter where they are,“Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.” (Anybody else thinking Alaska?)
I find John Quinton’s description very apt, especially these days, “Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel.”
But it is Henry Cate, VII who has the final word on politicians, “The problem with political jokes is they get elected.”
This is the second set of political quotes (the first is here). I don’t know where you live, but I just received our 2012 Primary Voters’ pamphlet and it’s enough to make you weep. Granted, for years I’ve used my vote against someone I can’t stand as opposed to voting for someone I like, but there are some races that I can’t stand any of the candidates.
Before considering the candidates let’s give some thought to politics and politicians—conceptually, that is.
Oscar Ameringer provides a good basic definition to set the mood, “Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.”Wow; 25 words that say it all.
So how would you describe a politician?
According to Texas Guinan, “A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.”
Nikita Khrushchev reminds us that people aren’t that different no matter where they are,“Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.” (Anybody else thinking Alaska?)
I find John Quinton’s description very apt, especially these days, “Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel.”
But it is Henry Cate, VII who has the final word on politicians, “The problem with political jokes is they get elected.”
Unless you’ve been off-planet you’ve probably noticed that it’s election time again and if you think it’s been bad so far, well, as the man said, you ain’t seen nothing yet. That said, I thought a little levity now and then would relieve the tedium of listening to both sides lie over the next six months.
Aesop, he of the famous Fables, has a wonderful insight that certainly explains many of those who hold office—past, present and, sadly, future, “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.”
Plato did a great job of explaining the difference between those who run and those who vote, “Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.”
Clarence Darrow summed up how many of us feel today when he said, “When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it.”
While Mark Twain, in his inimitable style, handily summed up the Legislative Branch, “Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.”
Finally, Milton Friedman succinctly sums up everything, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
Tomorrow is T day (if you aren’t prepared I hope you have filed your extension), so it seemed like a good time to look at who pays what.
No new books meant President Obama’s income is down nearly a million, but he still paid 20%.
President Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported adjusted gross income of $789,674 in 2011 and paid just over 20 percent of it to the federal government in taxes.
He paid 13.9 percent in taxes on income of $21.7 million for 2010 and about the same rate for the not fully completed 2011 returns.
The current tax code is 5,296 pages long vs. 27 when it was written. The majority of the additional 5,969 pages are descriptions and explanations of how to legally cheat on your taxes.
If economists ran the tax system, there would be virtually no exemptions or loopholes. Instead, businesses, rich people, Congressmen and attorneys spend a shockingly large amount of time lobbying for tax breaks or exploiting the ones that exist.
As is often the case with his activities, just beneath the surface was a shrewd use of the United States tax code.
Just in case you are wondering, here’s some intel on what catches the eye of those who pay in the 15% tax bracket.
Neiman Marcus sold out of pewter-color Ferraris (luggage set matching the interior included) at $395,000 each within 50 minutes of making 10 of them available through its “fantasy” holiday catalog late last month.
But in the great scheme of US taxation, Romney’s 14% is still significantly higher than many of our large corporations pay, especially those in the so-called “Dirty Thirty.”
In January, the two organizations identified 30 corporations whose cumulative profit was $164 billion from 2008 to 2011. These corporations didn’t just avoid paying taxes — they actually collected $10.6 billion in tax rebates, according to the groups. They were dubbed the “Dirty Thirty.”
Sad to say that the quality of those in the office over the last 50 years has gone seriously downhill from the quality of the first 50.
Several years ago I wrote
We have no leaders, let alone statesmen, just ideologues, elected by like-minded ideologues, who care only about getting reelected, bringing government money back to their constituency and making lucrative connections in the event they aren’t reelected or are caught by term limits.
Based on the current political activity it’s not likely to improve any time soon (this applies to both Houses of Congress, as well as state, regional and local races).
Ideology is the primary lens through which all actions are viewed and any real value to the country and its citizenry is a distant second.
What are your thoughts? What can be done to change this?
As I promised last week, today is a “tour of Mencken’s irreverent view of politics and democracy that will provide great zingers for holiday get-togethers and leave you chuckling.”
Let’s start with democracy, since everyone seems to agree that it’s a good thing. Of course, definitions vary and Mencken offers some great choices in case you haven’t settled on one.
I’ll start with a basic definition and get more sarcastic from there, Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Mencken didn’t think much of “the people” and my guess is no county was excepted from this scathing comment, Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
Hand-in-glove with that thought is this one, Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
He also said, Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses. Not only worship, but elect; we jackasses keep electing jackals—party be damned.
Of course, you can’t expect a lot more when Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven.
Finally, Mencken sums up his attitude towards democracy thusly, I confess I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing.
Now on to the politics and politicians.
Again, we’ll start with a definition, A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.
He also said, A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar. It’s hard to disagree with that comment, too.
I’m sure you’ve noticed that politicians of all stripes say anything to get elected; it’s nothing new, Mencken noticed it, too, If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.
2012 is a presidential election year and the show has already begun, A national political campaign is better than the best circus ever heard of, with a mass baptism and a couple of hangings thrown in.
Let’s end with one final definition along with the reason for it. Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
And the reason? Each party steals so many articles of faith from the other, and the candidates spend so much time making each other’s speeches, that by the time election day is past there is nothing much to do save turn the sitting rascals out and let a new gang in.
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
Are you as disgusted with political campaigning as I am?
Here is the fourth installment of comments about politics; if you missed the previous ones you may find them here 
Anyone reading the news—local, national or global—knows that hate and intolerance are increasing at an alarming rate everywhere.
There are many companies and other organizations that pride themselves on their diversity and the effective programs that opened opportunities for women, but are they effective in changing the way people actually think?
Happy President’s Day.
As I promised 
