Are politicians the team leaders or the only team players

[NJmaverick]

Do you consider yourself part of a team that is trying to get things done and make the nation better? In that context do you consider the politicians the team leaders? One could further extend this analogy to include multiple teams like the GOP, the Dems and others


On the other hand do you consider politicians to be the only team players and we the voters are like the fan base. In this context the politicians play for the approval of the fans (we the voters). In this case all the politicians are merely playing the game to win the approval of the fans which gives them votes and power.


In which context do you view the political process?

[Ozymanithrax]

1. We live in a representative democratic republic.

Politicians are supposed be representatives and we the people are the leaders. We tell them what we want, and they fetch it.

It doesn't work this way now, because people expect them to be leaders, to tell us what we want (at best) or tell us to sit down and shut up while they do what is good for us.

[NJmaverick]

3. "We tell them what we want, and they fetch it."

Did it ever work that way? Plus what about people wanting different things?

[Ozymanithrax]

12. That is the theory under which it is supposed to work.

Like Christianity and Socialism, it doesn't exist in practice.

That is because "we the people" have never forced it to work that way. That doesn't mean that some of us can not try in our limited way to make it work that way.

For me, our elected politicians are not my leaders, they represent me. Many of them are very bad representatives that I try to fire on every occasion. I do not look to any of them for leadership. I can not force other people to think as I do.

[NJmaverick]

15. I feel differently

I don't think groups of people can function effectively with out leadership. Groups can't provide leadership, rather that comes from the elected officials.

[Ozymanithrax]

23. Then I will offer a herd analogy as to the way politics seems to work in practice

Humans work like a herd of gazelle. We have alpha leaders, who lead the herd, watch out for predators, and butt heads together to decide who is the Top Alpha. If a top Alpha looks weak, one of the lower Alpha take it down and replace it. Most of the herd simply wants to be left alone to eat grass and fornicate to make more herd members. As long as we can eat grass and fornicate, most of the herd doesn't care who is in charge.

Alpha's look after the herd, tell it to move when all the grass is eaten (this is domestic policy) and tell it to run or charge when a predator approaches. (this is foreign policy) A good Alpha can play the herd like Jimmi Hendrix played a guitar and we are safe and content. (See http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm">Maslow's hierarchy of needs) A good alpha knows that when the herd works together it is safe, it eats well, and can fornicate and make new members to its hearts content. Alone, a good Alpha is lunch for a leopard, and some asshole bunch of tribesman will stampede the herd over a cliff, gut them, and eat them.

Now, that relates to your team analogy in that, all the members of the herd are critical to a herds safety. If some member is to busy scratching it's ass on a tree, lions come in and eat the young, the old, and the slow. Good leaders are necessary to keep the herd safe and stop herd members form spending too much time scratching their ass. The herd keeps the leader alive.

But I don't think of myself as a gazelle. That is a conceit, but it is my conceit. From observation, it doesn't work that way, humans work as a herd and the herd is only safe when the leader and the herd work together.

[Larry Ogg]

56. It is true that humans have natural alpha leaders,

but it is also true that humans have inter species predators known as psychopaths (aka individuals without a conscience), it is also known that psychopaths have an insatiable predatory lust for power and that they will go to any deceptive or lethal means to acquire it, it is also true that, IMHO, they are usurping power by keeping the true alpha leaders out of power by whatever means necessary. It is also true that the human herd, is both, instinctively as well as conditioned too obey its leaders, although the majority of humans who have a conscience believe that conscience is universal among all humans, and they have not the natural ability to detect those that don't, i.e. the predator psychopaths. Hence when predators take the positions of alpha leaders, i.e. the wolves in sheep's clothing, the human herd is led into error, becomes increasingly narcissistic, suffers greatly; and then they are ripe for the slaughter, and then some asshole bunch of tribesman will stampede the herd over a cliff, gut them, and eat them... and with mustard too...

[Ozymanithrax]

65. The word psychopath has a real meaning

A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

Applying psychopath to political figure is inaccurate and subjective. Those on the right consider those on the left to be suffering from mental disorders. Those on the right can have enormous empathy for people who agree with them.

In reality, political figures on the right, are highly social, capable of gaining herds of adoring fans.

You may disagree with their political goals and their world view, as I do, but that doesn't not make them psychopaths.

Nobody on the right or the left seeks political office without a predatory lust for power. Leaders or alphas, whether right or left, differ only in their world view, not what they are.

I use the herd analogy because it fits my observation of human behavior here in the U.S. and can be applied generally everywhere. Most of the herd are content to eat nachos, watch TV, and let the leadership do what ever they think is right.

[Larry Ogg]

67. Politicizing the science of character disorders

was an attempt to group many distinct disorders under one name, and one researcher described it as casting out a huge net with a small mesh, so yes it caught the big fish but it also caught mostly the very small fish, this methodology assumes of course, that the laymen fisherman will erroneously think that all the fish are the same size because they were to big to fit through the small netting. Applying this method to character disorders meant that the unique differences between the many disorders would be blurred and much time in understanding was lost, but some researchers thought this methodology a bit absurd and decided to go fishing with a larger mesh net, and guess what, a lot of the small fish slipped right on through, allowing them to concentrate on what made the big fish so unique. They in effect figured out that there are significant and cogent differences between psychopath, sociopath, antisocial, borderline, narcissistic, histrionic etc. It is true that there are a lot of similarities but each also has its own uniqueness, psychopath being the most well organized, dangerous, cunning and undetectable; if they weren't so evil they would be perfect.

You say that "Applying psychopath to political figures is inaccurate and subjective." Consensus or adherence to political paradigms does not constitute objective psychology or reality, but it has helped tyrants to destroy many lives, civilizations and empires throughout human history; fortunately there is a growing consensus and acceptance of evidence which show that psychopaths are indeed drawn to positions of power and political power does not only allow them to change the laws that stand in their way, it allows them to be above laws.

You might want to read http://www.electricpolitics.com/media/docs/authoritarians.pdf">"The Authoritarians” By psychologist Bob Altemeyer, in it he describes how highly social, caring, charitable, peace loving, well meaning people can end up following, obeying and even murdering in the name of, some ruthless dictator; it doesn't mean that these people are psychopaths either, but it does show how some people are predisposed to being misled when a psychopath with political power comes strolling by.

Your conclusions as to what draws people to social service just shows your perception of who is in charge, it doesn't mean that there are no non-predator types willing to serve...

Opinion and world views differ greatly, research also shows that right wing authoritarians tend to be conservative and that their world views are more naive, erroneous, and subjective then are progressive liberal world views, research also shows that countries are more likely to be at war when conservatives are in charge as apposed to liberals.

And yes I like your herd analogy, and given enough leisure and pleasure the herd will drop its guard and before you know it predators become the masters of the herd.

[grantcart]

28. We tell them what we want, and they fetch it. Priceless.

[griffi94]

2. I voted other

I've started to view the political process as not much more than a public spectacle that gives the citizenry the feeling that they have some say in they way they're governed.

I don't really believe that the political process, as it stands today, is there for any other reason other than to protect the status quo.

The PTB, whoever they are, have a vested interest in things continuing as they are for as long as they will. The average citizens will continue, IMHO, to be divided over mostly insignificant issues like Tea Party Rallys and whatever outrageous thing talk radio spouts on any given day.

Politics is like any other Grand Show. The elites own the show. We're just the audience members.

[NJmaverick]

5. Have you seen a nation or political system that works better?

[griffi94]

8. I dont really keep up with world politics that much.

I know the nations of Europe have, through history, changed their forms of government.
I think ours will eventually change when critical mass has been reached.
JMHO but it would probably have happened during the depression had FDR not implemented the New Deal.

[NJmaverick]

11. My feeling on the matter is that humans are and always will be flawed

as such any political system will be limited

[griffi94]

13. Well flawed is to be expected

However I think our political system has become largely dysfunctional. The PTB and major capital will always slant the board to their advantage. Always have, always will. That in and of itself isn't the problem, but a good parasite doesn't kill its host, and the millions of Americans who made up the host are now being killed by finding their jobs gone their houses gone their money gone.
At some point critical mass will be reached.

[NJmaverick]

45. At some point I took a comparative politics class

where we compared the various political systems of the world. In the end I was struck by how every system attempts to balance the flaws in people with the freedom to act. I can't think of any political system that is not flawed. Although flawed doesn't rise to the level of dysfunctional and I don't think ours is that broken.

[griffi94]

48. I don't think ours has to be broken'

It's just weighted too much in favor of the influential few. At some point we'll reach critical mass and get another round of real reform. Like the New Deal. Until then it's just more business as usual on the major issues with some squabbling around the edges.

[Larry Ogg]

61. As the conscience people of the world learn

about psychopaths (who have no conscience) and their modus operandi for gaining power, their (the psychopaths) days of ruling the masses will be over, and governments will begin to function in ways only imagined by honest people.

[asdjrocky]

4. 'Fan base.' Wow. Just wow. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

14. Didn't comment about it, but "Fan Base" is an incredibly apt description. n/t

[HughMoran]

26. Intelligent!

[tekisui]

6. It isn't about 'teams' at all. Politics is not a team sport.

It is about people and policy that effects them. We elect agents. We are the principles. The politicians are supposed to represent our interests.

We have a democratically elected republic. We elect those who will act on our behalf. The few make the decisions for the many. Money has so thoroughly corrupted the process, though, that we no longer have true representation.

[griffi94]

9. While I agree with you

that it shouldn't be a team sport, it has turned into that.
Complete with color commentary, play by play anyalysis, entire TV stations dedicated to it.

[NJmaverick]

10. So you are pretty much in the camp that believes that politicians are on their own

fighting among themselves for our approval. I am in the other camp that believes we are all in this together and we need to work as a team. I think our President is also in this camp, based on his speeches challenging us all to work for change.

[tekisui]

17. What exactly are you doing?

What 'work' for your 'team' are you doing?

[NJmaverick]

18. I work to dispel the myths and false talking points put out by the right

I donate considerable money to the right politicians. I support the Democratic party to strengthen it in its never ending fight with the GOP. I work campaigns, sign petitions. contact my Congress people and attend protests. If there is something I can do to make things better I take my chance.


How about yourself? What do you do to support our political leaders and help improve things?

[tekisui]

20. Much the same.

Donate, campaign, petition, call my reps, protests.

I don't see the distinction between what you do in your 'camp' and where you tried to put me. I also think it is a bit of a self-satisfying illusion to think that you or I have any impact in our 'work'.

Maybe your question should have been "Do you believe that you have a real and effective influence in the political arena?"

[griffi94]

21. I'm not trying to be disagreeable

but do you try to dispel the myths & false talking points put out by the left as well.
If not shouldn't you start. Aren't myths and false talking points wrong period.

This is where the political process has become like a team sport, my team thick or thin, right or wrong, because the other side is even worse.

There was a time when I did all the same stuff you're doing. Protests, letters to my elected reps.
I've since taken the view that the RW couldn't pull this off without help.

[tekisui]

22. My team right or wrong will result in moves to the right. It is up to us

to let our Democratic representatives know that we will not support or elect conservatives, even within out party.

[HughMoran]

29. The net effect of having both Republicans and Democrats attacking Democrats, will, of course, be

more Republicans!!

[NJmaverick]

30. Sad but true

[tekisui]

37. The net result of supporting conservatism in the Democratic Party is

more Conservatism!!

[NJmaverick]

40. We cured the disease but killed the patient

that is what one must guard against

[HughMoran]

41. Enjoy the new batch of Republicans

Even conservative Democrats from Republican districts are better than having Speaker Boehner.

Do you disagree?

[tekisui]

42. Of cooooooourse Speaker Boner is a horrid prospect.

But, if the Dem leaders fail to keep their winning coalition together, they only have themselves to blame.

[HughMoran]

44. So crapping all over Democrats and thus it's reported that "Liberals are in revolt"

has no effect at all on the elections?

Elections are no longer about supporting one's candidates, or at least supporting the party for the greater good?

[tekisui]

50. Elections are about choosing the agent that will best represent you.

If the candidate cannot convince someone that they are the better choice, then they have failed in their campaign. It is up to the candidate to earn the support of the voter.

As for 'crapping on Democrats', they are not above criticism, and they earn plenty of it. Again, they do this to themselves.

[NJmaverick]

46. I disagree, the blame is evenly spread around the leadership and those in the coalition

[tekisui]

49. No one owes their vote to anyone.

It is up to the candidate to earn it. Blind support gets us nowhere.

[NJmaverick]

51. Your blind support framing is inaccurate and leads to erroneous conclusions

A better way to look at it is through a responsibility frame. As a liberal it's my responsibility to keep the GOP out of power and ruining our nation. It could be argued that those liberals that refused to vote for Gore, enabled Bush to steal the election and that action eventually resulted in two wars.

I think your use of the term "blind" would better be served if it was used to describe those that don't appreciate the consequences of not opposing those politicians that pose a real and serious threat to our nation.

[tekisui]

53. I stopped reading when you blame bush on liberals.

[HughMoran]

58. In my view, NJMaverick asking for intellectual honesty

has won the day. :shrug:

[HughMoran]

57. Very well stated

Let's keep this an intellectually honest debate - much appreciated.

[NJmaverick]

43. That's always a point to remember. A conservative Democrat

is sometimes the best we can hope for, depending on the district. I am of the school of thought that thinks a conservative Dem is still better than any Republican, especially in light of the leadership those republicans bring.

[griffi94]

32. Again I'm with you in theory

but we don't have any real power except as a group, and that power has been neutralized.
JMO but the only way we ever get progressive representation is by first getting publicly funded elections, and second reinstating the fairness act. That's the only way to get control away from the monied minority that actually controls things.

I really think we're already to far gone and the next big shake up will come when the publics pain can no longer be masked with electric gadgets and suspense over American Idol.

[NJmaverick]

24. As a matter of fact I do, the truth is more critical

That's why I usually object to most of the articles posted by FDL.

[HughMoran]

27. Many of us do that as well

[griffi94]

19. I agree that political speeches tend to be about teams

but the reality is that we're not really team members. We're more like the audience at a living theatre production. We're needed to make the thing work, but we're not really cast members and so have no say in the production.

Here's an example of what I mean.

Take just one major issue like the war. The majority want the wars ended, hell even the RW is paying lip service to ending them, and yet we're still at war.
The majorities desire doesn't jibe with what the PTB want, and the PTB win everytime. It's their show.

[NJmaverick]

25. Point of fact the Iraq war is winding down

our troops have been cut nearly in half from their peaks and it's getting smaller by the day.

[griffi94]

35. That's great

I seem to remember that the midterms in 2006 were about ending the war. It's really good that they'll get it done in about a decade.
Look I'm not a 1 issue person. The war is there. What I thought or didn't think about it is moot.
I was using that as an example of something the majority of Americans wanted.
Same as with a HCR bill with a PO. The people wanted a public option, the vested interests didn't. They won.
I'm not getting into who said what, just pointing out that when it comes to what the majority wants and what the PTB want, they win.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Unfortunately the game is fixed and the "team" leaders have thrown the game.

But, they still promise the fans that they will win if we give them more money and vote for them.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

39. +1000!

[Rex]

31. Politicians are fucking crooks and liars. There is only one team, theirs.

The rest of us have to hack it out.

[NJmaverick]

33. I disagree, there are many politicians who are not "fucking crooks and liars"

President Obama, Rep Wiener, Wes Clark, Howard Dean, Rep Grayson just to name a few.

[Rex]

38. True, there are a FEW good ones. Far to few.

I'd add Waxman and DK to that list as well.

[Sebastian Doyle]

63. Waxman lost some serious points recently

He's certainly no crook or liar, but his integrity took a big hit when he supported that piece of shit Jane Harman over the much better candidate Marcy Winograd (an actual Democrat, like he usually is, and Harman definitely is NOT) in the recent primary.

His endorsement might have been a big help for Marcy, and could have removed one of the worst false "Democrats" in the history of this party from Congress. :evilfrown:

[Rex]

69. Yeah, I didn't want to even admit to that. Since you brought it up

it has lowered my opinion of him as well. :(

[grantcart]

34. I believe that you have understated the question.

Most representative democracies use Parlimentary systems to form governments. Some like France use a hybrid system where the President is elected directly.


For the most part, through out the world of elected democratic governments, representatives are not seen as being elected to represent the particular constituency in the elected body. Rather they are seen as representing the constituency in the caucus of the party that they are elected to.

In the caucus all of the elected representatives argue over policy but once it has been decided support the caucus.

Once the governing body has reached a point where it can no longer maintain caucus discipline and maintain its voting discipline in parliment and loses a key policy point then it is deemed to have lost its mandate and the head of state is informed and elections are called for a new election. Usually no single party has a working majority and the leader of the largest party is asked to form a government with other parties. That coalition governs until it no longer can maintain the larger caucus discipline or if it reaches a constitutionally mandated end of term.

Given the fact that Republicans excel at caucus discipline because they have adopted a near militaristic formula for following the leader in caucus the question might be, "Do you think that the Democratic Party can successfully lead the government as the only representative political party that does not have a high degree of caucus discipline?".

The fact is that when you are in the minority cohesion is not required. When you have a mandate to govern it is impossible to govern, especailly when you have the Senate requiring a super super majority, without caucus cohesion and discipline.

Governing is by definition a team sport, unless you want strong arm rule by a dictator.

[NJmaverick]

36. You raise some excellent points and issues

the cohesion of the Dems coalition is a major issue.

[Ozymanithrax]

47. One more problem with the game analogy...

People who think of politics as a game think in terms of a limited period ending by a win, a loss, or a draw.

Politics is a process that doesn't end in winning or losing. What side gives us what we perceive as an advantage? I vote mostly for Democrats, and donate money to them (when I'm employed) because the polices of the Democratic party will lead to legislation that is closer to what I see as good for me and this nation. Their policies will always be slightly friendlier to the poor and middle class than the affluent (effluent) or wealthy. This can change, but has remained true since FDR.

Whining about conservatism, DLCers, Blue Dogs, or any other description is self defeating. We put democrats in power because the worst possible Democratic administration will be better than the best possible Republican administration, and there is no alternative at this time in our history. Once we get them in power, we primary the bad ones and elect better. Should one of those two brands actually die, another brand with the same constituency and beliefs will arise within a couple of elections. The winner take all two party system is not going to change. It is a feature of our Constitution and our laws.

[jp11]

52. Other.

Most politicians are for sale to the wealthy on issues they don't care about or have little interest in so long as they keep their job and get money/favors. Those politicians are not so much for sale on few core issues they actually believe in, usually having to do with money, and lastly they have some interest in winning over voters because if they can't win around half of them over they'll lose their jobs. But even the desire to keep their jobs and power aren't enough to have them do a 180' on money or their 'core' values, assuming they have any for fear of losing their devoted fans who will never turn on them.

I'm not wealthy, and I'm not here to be won over by anyone.

[NJmaverick]

54. The fundraising by our current President had the majority of the money

coming from small donors. How do you reconcile that fact with your theory?

[jp11]

55. I said 'most' not all, anything further I don't feel I can answer on this board.

[Sebastian Doyle]

64. Well he seems to forget that.

When he puts the interests of Wall Street, the insurance industry, the MIC, etc ahead of those of the people who donated to him.

[NJmaverick]

66. From what I have seen, the President has been putting the interests of the people first

which stands to reason. His life has been about helping others and making things better.

[tiny elvis]

59. are we watching the black sox or the globetrotters?

[Dr Morbius]

60. Other: it's not a game. It's government.

Politics is a game, and government should be something more. I believe the President feels this way; he tried to be as bipartisan as anyone I've ever seen after the 2008 elections (to our dismay on the left!). It used to be that once the elections were over, members of both houses of Congress would put politics aside from time to time. Sandra Day O'Connor received I believe 97 yea votes in the Senate when she was nominated by Reagan; that kind of party crossover is unthinkable today.

I think there's an enforced false dichotomy that one must belong to one "team" or another, and that one must ascribe to the belief system of that team. This is ultimately destructive to our democracy. There will always be two political parties; our constitutional system is such that two major parties opposing one another will always work best. But we have to allow parties to fail sometimes! If the GOP were to fail and another, perhaps more sensible conservative party were to emerge, it would be literally the best thing that could happen for the country.

But the laws are written in such a way that no matter how fragmented or disconnected either party may become, the Democratic and Republican parties are entrenched and here to stay. I think that's a shame.

It's not a game. It's government. It's too important to be reduced to a game.

[NJmaverick]

62. It;s an analogy not a literal statement

[Stinky The Clown]

68. How do *you* see it, Senator?