Where have all the Statesmen gone?

[JohnB]

Is it just me? Or do others also think that the calibre of our current crop of politicians is pretty small?

 

Not knowing the ins and outs of US politics I won't comment on whether Obama is a good or bad President, but he certainly seems "Lacklustre" from the outside. Either lacking a grand dream for the future of his nation or is unable to communicate that dream. All the Republican opponents remind me of generic talking heads. Carefully media trained but no substance.

 

Down here we have Gillard who is at best a plain out and out liar and at worst certifiably delusional. She's living in a dream where for two years every poll has shown we don't want a carbon tax but she still thinks we support it. (Polls are 83%-87% against) Her party has been defeated in every election since the last Federal one with the numbers against constantly climbing. Queensland was the latest loss where they went from being the government down to 7 seats. Anybody who thinks that their party can still win when they only have 30% of the Primary vote is, I think, mentally unstable. Tony Abbott, the opposition leader is a nice guy who does a lot of things out of camera view but a Statesman? Not really. A serious down to earth plodder who will make a quiet but effective Prime Miniater.

 

The Brits. Well I have trouble even telling the two sides apart any more quite frankly, but there certainly doesn't seem to be a Churchill in the pack anywhere.

 

Europe seems to be more about bending the knee and kowtowing to the faceless 'crats in Brussels. God forbid that any nation think differently from the approved opinions of the Eurozone comptroller generals.

 

Okay, we don't have WW 3 on the horizon but there are still quite a few problems and some decent Statemen would probably come in handy.

 

So where are they?

 

Can anybody think of a politician who comes up to the standard of the ones from 50 - 60 years ago?

[CharonY]

A bit off topic, but in Europe I have pretty much the opposite impression. Brussel is pretty much kowtowing to the gazillion of different demands of basically all European leaders and interest groups, resulting in policies that are confused, contradictory and ultimately useless.

[CaptainPanic]

I think that the past of often being romanticised and idealized. I think politicians in the past were just as naive, stupid and empty as they are nowadays.

 

The only difference perhaps is that nowadays we put a camera on them 24/7, and we expect them to give an answer to a problem mere minutes after some event occurred. In the past, politicians probably had more time to think, and far less time to speak (or at least, fewer things they said were being recorded). As a result, modern politicians seem to make more mistakes.

[CharonY]

This actually makes a lot of sense.

[ewmon]

The only difference perhaps is that nowadays we put a camera on them 24/7, and we expect them to give an answer to a problem mere minutes after some event occurred. In the past, politicians probably had more time to think, and far less time to speak (or at least, fewer things they said were being recorded). As a result, modern politicians seem to make more mistakes.

I think of statesmen as dealing with long-term, enduring, big-picture, global situations and solutions. And I think you're right about modern-day real-time media clamoring for an instantanteous answer.

[JohnB]

I think of statesmen as dealing with long-term, enduring, big-picture, global situations and solutions.

 

To a degree I agree. I just think of them more as having a vision for a better future, either for their particular nation or the world in general. The closest we have is that our opposition leader put forward the idea that since Asia is going to increase in population that it would be a good idea to build dams and irrigation in the top end of Australia to allow us to export more food.

 

As you can imagine, the Australian Greens had a fit over the idea. I'm not sure why 100,000 square miles of useless land should be kept useless, it's not like we're short on deserts or poor land, but there you go.

 

But where are the dreamers? Those who went before gave us the Snowy River Scheme, they built the highway networks across entire continents and the current crop think that 30 windmills in a valley is a major achievement.

[CaptainPanic]

I think of statesmen as dealing with long-term, enduring, big-picture, global situations and solutions.

Oh, they do have plans for long-term issues. It's just that as soon as there was a murder, 15 camera crews race to the mayor's office to ask if this means that we need more police on the streets.

 

The public and especially the media (who report what the public want to read) do not allow politicians to deal with long term, enduring, big-picture, global situations and solutions... because as soon as a short-term issue, or an incident comes up, that politician better be ready to give some answer how we're gonna prevent that from happening ever again.

[dimreepr]

I think that the past of often being romanticised and idealized. I think politicians in the past were just as naive, stupid and empty as they are nowadays.

 

The only difference perhaps is that nowadays we put a camera on them 24/7, and we expect them to give an answer to a problem mere minutes after some event occurred. In the past, politicians probably had more time to think, and far less time to speak (or at least, fewer things they said were being recorded). As a result, modern politicians seem to make more mistakes.

 

Whilst I have to agree with your assessment of the role the media play in shaping the modern statesmen, I do have a caveat, that being the tendency, at least here in the UK, for the modern politicians to be in a “bubble”. They go straight from education into politics via internships. So the problem is twofold 1. They have to have money so only the elite may apply. 2. They have no real world experience. This creates a natural void between the average citizen and the ruling class.

 

 

[Phi for All]

Politicians get money for their campaigns from special interest groups mostly made up of businesses. They're then beholden to those groups for getting into office. They appropriate funds and pass bills benefiting those groups. This kind of work is then spun to pass as representation of the public and economic welfare. Unfortunately, what works best for businesses these days is rarely what works best for the public or the economy. Current business models are not in parallel with the models people used to associate with a healthy economy, well-regulated commerce and productive social programs. There are too many conflicts of interest going on, and the political paradigm has gone from statesman to spin doctor hand puppet or uber-secretive CEO.

 

Edit to add: I don't think Big Business is anything evil or inherently corrupt. I think they've simply convinced themselves that manipulating the system from within is the legal, ethical way of doing business these days. They probably feel they are helping the country by bringing commerce and keeping people employed and consuming. It's the business models that are at odds, that requires them to rebel against regulation, that shows them lobbying can be more profitable than manufacturing, that shows them a bottom line made healthier by NOT hiring national workers. Democracy is not working properly with the current business models in place, imo.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Phi for All
addition

[CaptainPanic]

Whilst I have to agree with your assessment of the role the media play in shaping the modern statesmen, I do have a caveat, that being the tendency, at least here in the UK, for the modern politicians to be in a “bubble”. They go straight from education into politics via internships. So the problem is twofold 1. They have to have money so only the elite may apply. 2. They have no real world experience. This creates a natural void between the average citizen and the ruling class.

I don't know if that natural void is such a problem. Or, rather, I don't know if the medicine for it isn't worse than the disease.

 

Over here in the Netherlands, we have some experience with new parties that formed, got popular, and needed new members to fill the seats they won in elections. So, they found people with the "real world experience" that you talk about. I can tell you that this is no perfect solution either. A politician needs a certain set of skills to be able to successfully engage in a political debate. Quite a few of those new people completely failed as a politician. They weren't able to listen, would often be inconsistent, and they refused to compromise (resulting in an unworkable situation in our parliament, where you need a coalition of parties for each decision), to name a few common problems.

[Arete]

Tony Abbott, the opposition leader is a nice guy who does a lot of things out of camera view but a Statesman? Not really. A serious down to earth plodder who will make a quiet but effective Prime Miniater.

 

Wat? Abbott - agree with him or not has always been one of the more vocal and controversial figures in contemporary Australian politics.

 

E.g.

 

TONY Abbott's plan to send back all asylum-seeker boats has drawn fire from Indonesia's police as well as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees as dangerous and in breach of international law. http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz1yuIbmwCW

 

Asked to clarify his views on homosexuality he said: "There is no doubt that challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things," he said last night. He was expanding on comments he made on 60 Minutes on Sunday night, in which he said: "I probably feel a bit threatened (by homosexuality), as so many people do." http://www.news.com....0#ixzz1yuIlXQ6j

 

"Why isn't the fact that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies regarded as a national tragedy approaching the scale, say, of Aboriginal life expectancy being 20 years less than that of the general community?" - From an address to the Adelaide University Democratic Club, 17 March 2004.

 

"I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman's right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man's right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak" http://www.abc.net.a...xt/s2514401.htm

 

etc.

 

As far as improving the quality of our politicians goes, I think we need restrictions which prevent us ending up with career politicians, who can shuffle portfolios amongst themselves (i.e. shift from education minister to environment minister to sports and recreation minister to...) and the inevitable popularist, short term policies aimed at simply winning the next election. As most people in democratic nations would know, there's two sides to almost every policy decision, and if you try to make everyone happy all the time, very little effectual change actually happens.

 

If we had an actual economist with the economic portfolio, an actual environmental scientist with the enviroment portfolio, an actual trained teacher with the education portfolio, etc. and gave these people limited terms so that they needed a career other than simply being politicians, they might be a) better equipped and b) more willing to make hard decisions which would actually progress the state of our countries.

[iNow]

Quite a few of those new people completely failed as a politician. They weren't able to listen, would often be inconsistent, and they refused to compromise (resulting in an unworkable situation in our parliament, where you need a coalition of parties for each decision), to name a few common problems.

Sounds familiar. The US recently has been voting in multiple tea party members with zero experience, and that's precisely what's happened here, except it's even worse since we're not a parliamentary system and these behaviors get magnified.