Politicians and the "Little Guy" Mindset

[Master of Ossus]

Most, if not all, liberal politicians and many conservative politicians advertise themselves to voters as being "in touch" with these economic groups. Most politicians focus their efforts on the middle-class, since it is by far the largest and possibly the most influential socio-economic group within the First World, right now. They also point out that their policies benefit the lower and/or middle classes. While some politicians have fairly small bank accounts that are within the range of the upper-middle class, a significant portion of politicians at the national and state levels are wealthy upper-class members. Additionally, almost all of the celebrities that attempt to involve themselves in political movements and causes are in the highest tiers of society.

It is obvious that these politicians and pundits have a conflict of interest, since their own socio-economic goals are not the same as those of the people they claim to be in touch with, value, and even represent. Where is the line drawn, then, between hypocrisy and genuine concern? There are doubtless celebrities and politicians who DO want to help "the little guy," but how is one to tell the difference between someone who's merely paying lip-service to these value systems and someone who is genuinely committed to them? More importantly, should we CARE if someone is merely paying lip-service to their political agendas, so long as they manage to keep their promises or do work that moves public policy in the direction that they espouse? Where, if at all, should the line be drawn?

[SirNitram]

Where, if at all, should the line be drawn?

While probably not intentional, this sentence clearly shows the problem. What about this sentence is so damning, you ask? It's the textbook definition of a Slippery Slope Fallacy, that's what.

As for 'omg they r not doing whut tey said!', I'm sorry, all politicians do this. Or should we draw a line somewhere where we all go to a Republicans house with half-bricks in socks when he starts flinging money at pork?

[Master of Ossus]

Where, if at all, should the line be drawn?

While probably not intentional, this sentence clearly shows the problem. What about this sentence is so damning, you ask? It's the textbook definition of a Slippery Slope Fallacy, that's what.

It's a slippery slope fallacy to suggest that there's a continuum of political motivations ranging from hypocrisy and self-interest all the way to genuine concern and principles?

[SirNitram]

Where, if at all, should the line be drawn?

While probably not intentional, this sentence clearly shows the problem. What about this sentence is so damning, you ask? It's the textbook definition of a Slippery Slope Fallacy, that's what.

It's a slippery slope fallacy to suggest that there's a continuum of political motivations ranging from hypocrisy and self-interest all the way to genuine concern and principles?

Talking about drawing the line certainly invokes that. I've been in enough logical debates to see such quite quickly.

In any case, the crux of the matter got snipped somehow. This is in no way limited to the Left in America, or even the Left in general. All political groups are rife with this sort of hypocrisy. The cliche of the lying politician didn't emerge from a vacuum.

[Andrew J.]

There are doubtless celebrities and politicians who DO want to help "the little guy," but how is one to tell the difference between someone who's merely paying lip-service to these value systems and someone who is genuinely committed to them?

Gee, I dunno...maybe we could, like, look at their actions and see if they match up with what they say?

[Howedar]

Where, if at all, should the line be drawn?

While probably not intentional, this sentence clearly shows the problem. What about this sentence is so damning, you ask? It's the textbook definition of a Slippery Slope Fallacy, that's what.

As for 'omg they r not doing whut tey said!', I'm sorry, all politicians do this. Or should we draw a line somewhere where we all go to a Republicans house with half-bricks in socks when he starts flinging money at pork?

No, it is merely a question of when questionable behavior becomes unacceptable. If there is already a range of behavior, it is in no way a slippery slope fallacy to ask where the line should be drawn. A slippery slope has to do with the implication that the problem will inevitably get worse. If the problem is already worse, there is no slippery slope to commit.

[Master of Ossus]

Talking about drawing the line certainly invokes that. I've been in enough logical debates to see such quite quickly.

What the fuck are you talking about? How is it a slippery slope fallacy to suggest that along a continuum of behaviors that can be readily agreed upon as being "good" or "bad" become unacceptable or sanctionable at certain points along that continuum?

In any case, the crux of the matter got snipped somehow. This is in no way limited to the Left in America, or even the Left in general. All political groups are rife with this sort of hypocrisy. The cliche of the lying politician didn't emerge from a vacuum.

Great. So, at WHAT POINT do these behaviors become good or bad?

[Master of Ossus]

Gee, I dunno...maybe we could, like, look at their actions and see if they match up with what they say?

That's one of the things I suggested in my post, dumbass. I asked whether we cared if someone was advancing his policies for political gain if they created results that were consistent with our own beliefs.

[Andrew J.]

Gee, I dunno...maybe we could, like, look at their actions and see if they match up with what they say?

That's one of the things I suggested in my post, dumbass. I asked whether we cared if someone was advancing his policies for political gain if they created results that were consistent with our own beliefs.

No, we don't.

[Darth Wong]

The sincere politician is a contradiction in terms. But ultimately, it doesn't matter as long as he does what you want him to do.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The sincere politician is a contradiction in terms. But ultimately, it doesn't matter as long as he does what you want him to do.

So what would you call someone, who was elected to a political office, who is sincere?

[Stofsk]

The sincere politician is a contradiction in terms. But ultimately, it doesn't matter as long as he does what you want him to do.

So what would you call someone, who was elected to a political office, who is sincere?

Too honest for his own good.

[General Zod]

The sincere politician is a contradiction in terms. But ultimately, it doesn't matter as long as he does what you want him to do.

So what would you call someone, who was elected to a political office, who is sincere?

it'd be unlikely to happen, to say the least. in order to get into any political office of any kind of importance you can't afford sincerity, as that will wind up scaring away a large chunk of the voting population.

[TrailerParkJawa]

All that really matters is how they vote on issues. Do you they think we should tax and spend, or cut taxes and spend. Notice I didn't say spend within our limits. Thats almost impossible for a politician to do. At least that is what the cynical side of me thinks.

[Darth Wong]

The sincere politician is a contradiction in terms. But ultimately, it doesn't matter as long as he does what you want him to do.

So what would you call someone, who was elected to a political office, who is sincere?

A fantasy.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The sincere politician is a contradiction in terms. But ultimately, it doesn't matter as long as he does what you want him to do.

So what would you call someone, who was elected to a political office, who is sincere?

A fantasy.

Note quite. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson (to name three) were sincere and honest about who they were, and what they wanted done, while they were in office.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Ah yes. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... except black men, and rich landowners are the only ones that get to vote. Hey look over there!

[General Zod]

So what would you call someone, who was elected to a political office, who is sincere?

A fantasy.

Note quite. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson (to name three) were sincere and honest about who they were, and what they wanted done, while they were in office.

at least that's what the history books paint them out to be at any rate.

[Illuminatus Primus]

So what would you call someone, who was elected to a political office, who is sincere?

A fantasy.

Note quite. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson (to name three) were sincere and honest about who they were, and what they wanted done, while they were in office.

No they were politicians same as ours. Jefferson and Jackson especially.

[LadyTevar]

There's always that one idea that whenever a politician does not life up to his campaign promises he be put on trial for "breach of contract".