Why doesn't anyone here run for government office?

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-05-26 12:19am

With the way the world -- and more specifically, the US -- is going, and the outrage we all seem to feel about things, why hasn't anyone from SD.net stood up and said, "Fuck it, somebody's gotta do something, so I will." For seven years I've pursued digital animation as my life's dream, but ever since coming here and getting involved and getting a clearer picture of what's happening around me, I've been more and more compelled to throw my hands up and say, "It's time for someone to stop this crap." I don't really want to do it, though. As much as I don't want things to go the way they are, I don't want power either. I just want to live my life without idiots ruining things for me and my family and friends. I'm not a fan of lying, either, and I think it's high-time for a politician who tells it like it is.

But does anyone else here feel the same way? Does anyone else here feel such outrage that it's time to get involved directly?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-05-26 12:24am

I'm starting to feel that way, but I don't think I really want to. I have too much cynicism in me, and to do this I'd need to boost my knowledge on politics and law by a great order of magnititude. This means going back to uni and studying. Not that it would be a bad thing to do, but I don't want to commit to something that I have no idea whether or not I'd be any good at. Politics is the art of lying, and I'm too honest for that. Or in other words, I've never had much practice lying, so I'm not good at it. This can only be a detriment when you have to get up there and lie or mislead in order to get something done.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-26 12:27am

I very nearly did earlier this year, just as a paper candidate though

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-05-26 12:27am

Well, I'm currently going to a University, and I'm beginning to give some thought to switching my major from animation to poli sci. And my point is that the world needs a politician who doesn't lie -- who tells it like it is and does what's right. Not another person who just manipulates to get what they want.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-05-26 12:30am

I've actually thought about it. But I'm no real position to do so know and am seriously too young to get elected to most positions anyway.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-05-26 12:32am

Well I am not American so I cant influence Americas actions. However if I ever get US citizenship I might run for the senate and try to change things.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-05-26 12:35am

McC wrote:Well, I'm currently going to a University, and I'm beginning to give some thought to switching my major from animation to poli sci. And my point is that the world needs a politician who doesn't lie -- who tells it like it is and does what's right. Not another person who just manipulates to get what they want.

Yeah, that would be cool. Reminds me of a certain 'I, Robot' story of asimov's - though I can't remember the name.

Or David Palmer from 24. He would be a cool president in real life.

The problem is, can you become a leader without being a manipulator? I think not, as the job requires it - you need to sell things to people, you have to make it seem good and so on so people will like it, this doesn't mean you have to lie necessarily - you could be a 'honourable' manipulator. But manipulating people to do things, even if they're the RIGHT things, will have to be part of the job.

But are you really passionate about this? I mean, giving up an art for politics just seems... I dunno, sad.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-05-26 12:40am

I've thought about it.

I'm sneaky and deceptive. And I'm arrogant and stubborn.

I'll make PM.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-05-26 12:40am

I know. I don't want to. I want to just do my thing, be content with my family, and stay out of the limelight. Most recognition I want is my name as a credit in a video game or a movie.

And I see what you're saying, but I make a distinction between convincing someone of the merits of something and manipulating them into agreeing to something. Convincing/debating a topic (how come we don't see politicians in debates saying, "Ad hominem fallacy" or "Strawman fallacy"? We need someone who just calls their opponents on the bullshit) is honorable. Manipulating with money, half-truths, or whatever is not.

I don't know. I just...I feel so...frustrated.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-26 12:45am

I was in a position in college where I could have put myself on a track to getting elected. College Republicans member, editor of a conservative newspaper, friends with a couple people active in the Pennsylvania state Republican Party...a lot of getting elected is who you know. Running as an independent is tough not only because people are accustomed to voting Democrat or Republican, but because with party backing comes campaign volunteers, comes money (usually not much in local elections, but some), comes advice and assistance from people who basically make a living getting people elected.

The trade off is you have to toe the party line. There's more flexibility than there is in a Parliamentary system, but I could not, for example, run for township council or state assembly as a Republican in favor of gay marriage, marijuana legalization, strict separation of church and state, and a death penalty moratorium. Likewise, I couldn't run as a Democrat in favor of ending farm subsidies, curtailing state level affirmative action programs, slashing taxes, enacting concealed-carry laws, and expanding nuclear power. I could be in favor of some of those things, but not all of them.

It's different for big name politicians because they carry too much clout in the legislature (the vast majority of elected politicians sit on some form of legislature) to be worth getting rid of. Why do you think George Bush and Rick Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter in the PA Republican primary this year, even though Pat Toomey is far closer to them idealogically and much of the national conservative Republican base sees Specter as a RINO? Because with more than two decades in the Senate, Specter has so much seniority that he's one of the most powerful Senators on the floor, and while he might be a thorn in the party's side from time to time, it's better to have a RINO who chairs the Judiciary Committee than a conservative who'll be lucky to get a seat on the potluck lunch committee. I, however, would not be a big name politician, so if I wanted to run with a chance of winning, I'd need to pick which principles I'm least unhappy compromising.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-05-26 12:47am

McC wrote:I don't know. I just...I feel so...frustrated.

Who doesn't? I feel the same way about a LOT of things.

I watched movies or read books and thought "Fuck, I could have done a better job."

To relate to politics, there is a caveat: sometimes, the leadership does things which most would consider bizarre or downright stupid, however sometimes the full facts aren't known. A particular action might have been taken out of necessity, based on information which isn't public knowledge. Heh, it's still frustrating though.

And your point about convincing vs manipulating is a good one, but consider this: what to do when your position is right and good, but the other person doesn't want to agree out of a combination of: malice, stupidity, general stubborness (as something that could come from bipartisanship ie I'm a democrat and I'm not gonna listen to anything you say, lousy republican - or vice versa) etc. So what do you do then? Debate till you're blue in the face? Note that manipulating people can be here or there - it can be honourable, in that you're manipulating arseholes to go along with you, and it can be dishonourable, as in lying to the public about a particular course of action.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-05-26 12:52am

If someone uses that tactic, you call them on it: Ad Hominem fallacy. You then go to the public: "This individual in question is disregarding valid, supported, logical points on the basis of party alignment. He will not discuss said points in a logical fashion, nor will he back up his own statements. Shall we elect this man, then? Or would you rather someone who tells it to you straight and tells you why?"

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-05-26 12:54am

The problem with calling candidates on fallacys and telling them to stick to the topic is that the general public could care less, as long as the candidate says the right words.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-05-26 12:57am

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing: politics relies a lot on emotions and rhetoric, which are sometimes illogical and irrational. THis doesn't change the fact that a logical person would make an excellent decion maker, being able to analyse all the facts to arrive at the best solution; however, people want a 'doer' and not a 'thinker' - at least, they want the PERCEPTION of a 'doer' or someone who is active and so on.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-26 12:58am

How's your public speaking by the way, are you any good at reading an autocue?

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-05-26 12:59am

Why not be both?

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2004-05-26 01:02am

In the US, you need money to even begin planning for running. Fliers, mail, air time, adspace, you need money to get that. Even if you're a member of the 2 big parties, gov't money only kicks in for the general election, not the primaries.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2004-05-26 01:06am

I considered running for the last local council elections, but decided not to, as it would have meant running against a family friend, I am still wondering whether to run next time or not.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-05-26 01:12am

Well, speaking for the regulars here, I think that most of us would have trouble being accepted. We speak our minds too often and too clearly, and a lot of the time we say things people don't like to hear. Take me, for example. I'm pretty conservative, but I'm also adamant about secularism, gay, lesbian and bisexual rights, etc. etc. etc. That would probably mean that no Republicans or Democrats would vote for me. While there are doubtless people that fit more clearly on one side of the spectrum, the sword of logic is two-edged, and cuts across the political spectrum.

I'm sure some of us could "tone it down" for the public, but really that just means that the job would suck worse if any of us were ever elected.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-26 01:14am

Master of Ossus wrote:Well, speaking for the regulars here, I think that most of us would have trouble being accepted. We speak our minds too often and too clearly, and a lot of the time we say things people don't like to hear. Take me, for example. I'm pretty conservative, but I'm also adamant about secularism, gay, lesbian and bisexual rights, etc. etc. etc. That would probably mean that no Republicans or Democrats would vote for me. While there are doubtless people that fit more clearly on one side of the spectrum, the sword of logic is two-edged, and cuts across the political spectrum.

I'm sure some of us could "tone it down" for the public, but really that just means that the job would suck worse if any of us were ever elected.

As I said, for most of us, to run successfully would mean picking which principles to compromise.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-05-26 01:27am

I'm talking about running as a candidate who doesn't compromise, but instead tries to show people that the old way is wrong and the new way ain't so much. Not as someone who tries to fit a mold. A pioneer, a patriot. That kind of person.

How's your public speaking by the way, are you any good at reading an autocue?

I can read from a typed document pretty well. I'm also a student of acting (you need to be in order to be a character animator), so I understand projection and speaking techniques and such. Never read from an autocue before, though.

Tzeentch · Post by **Tzeentch** » 2004-05-26 01:41am

McC wrote:I'm talking about running as a candidate who doesn't compromise, but instead tries to show people that the old way is wrong and the new way ain't so much. Not as someone who tries to fit a mold. A pioneer, a patriot. That kind of person.

Ever read All the King's Men?

That book pretty much drowned any political ambitions I might have had in an ocean of cynicism.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-05-26 01:42am

McC wrote:I'm talking about running as a candidate who doesn't compromise, but instead tries to show people that the old way is wrong and the new way ain't so much. Not as someone who tries to fit a mold. A pioneer, a patriot. That kind of person.

Thing about that is, the vast majority of people would turn to the old ways, anyway, simply because there's a sense of security in tradition (that's why companies advertise themselves as being "Since 1892" or whatever). There are the odd people for whom the tradition has worked. It would be VERY expensive and time-consuming to reach everyone and painstakingly explain why your way is better, since they would naturally question such a revolutionary candidate much more heavily than a more conservative one.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-26 01:52am

McC wrote:I can read from a typed document pretty well. I'm also a student of acting (you need to be in order to be a character animator), so I understand projection and speaking techniques and such. Never read from an autocue before, though.

The acting should definitely help especially if you are used to being on the stage. I asked because I’ve been doing quite a lot of campaigning recently and a few of the people I work with a great at the ideas and of things and organising stuff but don’t have the confidence to give a presentation to a small meeting never mind debate other candidates in front of a large audience.

It doesn’t matter how sound your ideas are if you aren't any good at getting them across. I try to get all my fellow campaigners to join a debating club and speak in it as often as possible, it’s an excellent way to build confidence and get used to thinking on your feet.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2004-05-26 01:53am

I'd be old enough to run for President (US) in 2016 and for Congress in 2012.

Hypothetically, I'd take the half-truth road a lot; I wouldn't compromise my own principles, but a lot of the time I'd let people think I was telling them something other than what I was. Regardless of whether it's for humor or for lying, I'm very deadpan.

Politics is a nasty field, but suprising people often are elected...