Full Version: Political passion
I was having a conversation about Politicians and the fact that they are by and large EXTREMELY boring. We're all aware of the fact that our politicians have their every word and step planned and measured; but I am more interested in what is going on behind the facade.
We so rarely see passion from our politicians. Now republicans will point to Bush's fiery speeches against terrorists (et al), and Democrats will point to equally emotional declarations issued by Kerry. But do these people really believe in what they're saying. Would they say these things if it weren't the politic thing to do?
Do you think our politicians are actually passionate about what they do?
Obviously I'm inclined to think that, by and large, they're not. Given this, does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
We so rarely see passion from our politicians. Now republicans will point to Bush's fiery speeches against terrorists (et al), and Democrats will point to equally emotional declarations issued by Kerry. But do these people really believe in what they're saying. Would they say these things if it weren't the politic thing to do?
Do you think our politicians are actually passionate about what they do?
Obviously I'm inclined to think that, by and large, they're not. Given this, does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
I think Reagan was last passionate politician - Bush is - I think passionate about his beliefs too - but he isn't the great communicator that Reagan was - Kerry is universally considered boring - Clinton was last Democrat who wasn't boring - He had Charisma - (lot of character flaws non-withstanding)
Do you think our politicians are actually passionate about what they do?
I think that being a politician is like any job: there are things we're really really excited about and things that bore the be-jeebers out of us.
Example: Kerry and McCain spent years tracking down missing POW/MIA stories to make sure that all the vets that wanted to come home were able to come home. Not exactly exciting work to spend all that time on and certainly not anything that put them in a bright spotlight, but they did it because it was a passion for them.
Example: highway funding bill.
Hard to get worked up over it.
So I think that each politician is different in what excites them. For some, it'll be funding for research into a particular disease or disorder, because a family member has it or has died from it. For others, it'll be social programs or figuring out ways to cut social programs. Whatever turns you on.
Given this, does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
I actually think that we're MORE interested in politics when there's something visible and concrete at stake. We in America seem a whoooole lot more interested in politics these days, even if many are only at the "talking points" level of interest. It's still more interest than I heard when Clinton and Dole ran against each other.
I think there are many reasons that people get turned off of politics, but the lack of fiery speakers isn't one of them. Most likely, it's the lack of really interesting topics to hold our interest that makes up some of the reasons.
I think that being a politician is like any job: there are things we're really really excited about and things that bore the be-jeebers out of us.
Example: Kerry and McCain spent years tracking down missing POW/MIA stories to make sure that all the vets that wanted to come home were able to come home. Not exactly exciting work to spend all that time on and certainly not anything that put them in a bright spotlight, but they did it because it was a passion for them.
Example: highway funding bill.
Hard to get worked up over it.So I think that each politician is different in what excites them. For some, it'll be funding for research into a particular disease or disorder, because a family member has it or has died from it. For others, it'll be social programs or figuring out ways to cut social programs. Whatever turns you on.
Given this, does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
I actually think that we're MORE interested in politics when there's something visible and concrete at stake. We in America seem a whoooole lot more interested in politics these days, even if many are only at the "talking points" level of interest. It's still more interest than I heard when Clinton and Dole ran against each other.
I think there are many reasons that people get turned off of politics, but the lack of fiery speakers isn't one of them. Most likely, it's the lack of really interesting topics to hold our interest that makes up some of the reasons.
Do you think our politicians are actually passionate about what they do?
Yes, or at least they start out that way. I attended a youth conference at the 2004 DNC in Boston, and many of the young people there were fired up, passionate, and ideological. Many of these people had legitimate and realistic political goals (for themselves) as well as passion for their beliefs. However, when one gets into the position that, for instance, a John Kerry or George Bush is in--things start to change. The policy stances become less ideological and more pragmatic. The rhetoric espoused begins to match less and less to actual policy. The candidate himself becomes blander and blander--and less offensive to anyone.
I think this is a direct reaction to the level of power a politician holds. When a once-passionate (we have debated thoroughly the rights/wrongs of his passions as a young man) John Kerry goes through 30 years in the Senate and runs for President, I think he is obviously inclined to look at the world less through an ideological lens and more through a practical, realistic one.
Does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
Actually, I think people are becoming more interested. I work at the Westin Hotel and Convention Center in downtown Pittsburgh. My girlfriend and I one of the few college graduates who can count themselves as a majority race--and thus statistically more likely to vote and be politically aware in general. However, the company decided to only allow the News in the break room. Within a few months, we started to find things scrawled on tabletops, placards that read: FOX News-unfair and unbalanced, Bill O'Suck, CNN--The terrorist network, Pat Robertson is Satan, etc., etc. The point is: for some reason, everyone really, really cares this time around--and therefore I think peoples' interest in politics is finally startign to increase.
Yes, or at least they start out that way. I attended a youth conference at the 2004 DNC in Boston, and many of the young people there were fired up, passionate, and ideological. Many of these people had legitimate and realistic political goals (for themselves) as well as passion for their beliefs. However, when one gets into the position that, for instance, a John Kerry or George Bush is in--things start to change. The policy stances become less ideological and more pragmatic. The rhetoric espoused begins to match less and less to actual policy. The candidate himself becomes blander and blander--and less offensive to anyone.
I think this is a direct reaction to the level of power a politician holds. When a once-passionate (we have debated thoroughly the rights/wrongs of his passions as a young man) John Kerry goes through 30 years in the Senate and runs for President, I think he is obviously inclined to look at the world less through an ideological lens and more through a practical, realistic one.
Does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
Actually, I think people are becoming more interested. I work at the Westin Hotel and Convention Center in downtown Pittsburgh. My girlfriend and I one of the few college graduates who can count themselves as a majority race--and thus statistically more likely to vote and be politically aware in general. However, the company decided to only allow the News in the break room. Within a few months, we started to find things scrawled on tabletops, placards that read: FOX News-unfair and unbalanced, Bill O'Suck, CNN--The terrorist network, Pat Robertson is Satan, etc., etc. The point is: for some reason, everyone really, really cares this time around--and therefore I think peoples' interest in politics is finally startign to increase.
I think passion has almost been factored out of public politics because red faces and raised voices (which almost come with passion, be it excitement or anger) do not make good television. It is still there in great measure in private politics - meet and talk to anyone about politics, including professional politicians, in private and I guarantee that you'll get some passion sooner or later. Not to mention honesty, candour, earthiness, common sense and humour - other qualities than seem to have been drained from the public arena.
Politicians are now so media savvy that the passion that they could have exhibited years ago, in the days of unscripted interviews or improvised speeches, has been sacrificed at the expense of getting that soundbite in as the lead story on the evening news.
I mean, when was the last time you heard ANY leading politician talk in paragraphs during a formal speech, other than wartime recordings of Churchill or Roosevelt (or even Hitler, for that matter). These days we're lucky...
*PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE*
...to get so much as a clause...
*PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE*
... that makes sense in it's own right...
*PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE*
...before the inevitable...
*PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE*
...pause for applause. Which doesn't actually do anything for the physically present audience (except tire their hands out). It just allows the broadcast media to use snippets that feel complete:
Obvious point, made in 5-10 seconds;
Easy smile;
2-3 seconds of applause
Television has made the ancient art of oratory obsolete outside the debating chamber. Even inside the debating chamber there could be a Gettysburg Address every other week, and we'd never know it because none of the mainstream media bother to report them any more.
This is because of the twin pressures of commercial necessity - today's Lincoln would need at least two or three commercial breaks at Gettysburg, no? - and, alas, the shortening attention spans of the channel hopping public. In other words, we really DO get the politics, and the politicians, we deserve.
Maybe someday boards like this will have the ability to store video recording of us speaking our points, at which point passion might come back into fashion (thanks to Barry Manilow, and over to you, Mike & Jaime?
). Until then, passionate politics in public is doomed to be a minority interest, I fear.
Politicians are now so media savvy that the passion that they could have exhibited years ago, in the days of unscripted interviews or improvised speeches, has been sacrificed at the expense of getting that soundbite in as the lead story on the evening news.
I mean, when was the last time you heard ANY leading politician talk in paragraphs during a formal speech, other than wartime recordings of Churchill or Roosevelt (or even Hitler, for that matter). These days we're lucky...
*PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE*
...to get so much as a clause...
*PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE*
... that makes sense in it's own right...
*PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE*
...before the inevitable...
*PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE*
...pause for applause. Which doesn't actually do anything for the physically present audience (except tire their hands out). It just allows the broadcast media to use snippets that feel complete:
Obvious point, made in 5-10 seconds;
Easy smile;
2-3 seconds of applause
Television has made the ancient art of oratory obsolete outside the debating chamber. Even inside the debating chamber there could be a Gettysburg Address every other week, and we'd never know it because none of the mainstream media bother to report them any more.
This is because of the twin pressures of commercial necessity - today's Lincoln would need at least two or three commercial breaks at Gettysburg, no? - and, alas, the shortening attention spans of the channel hopping public. In other words, we really DO get the politics, and the politicians, we deserve.
Maybe someday boards like this will have the ability to store video recording of us speaking our points, at which point passion might come back into fashion (thanks to Barry Manilow, and over to you, Mike & Jaime?
). Until then, passionate politics in public is doomed to be a minority interest, I fear.
Gov. Dean was most definitely "passionate" about his politics, no denying that.
And for all that passion, his critics denounced him as "an extreme extremist" (thank you, Tom DeLay
) and "angry". You can't win showing your passion with a public that thinks that Presidents are on par with kings and queens. Passion is just sooo messy and undignified.
And for all that passion, his critics denounced him as "an extreme extremist" (thank you, Tom DeLay
) and "angry". You can't win showing your passion with a public that thinks that Presidents are on par with kings and queens. Passion is just sooo messy and undignified.
QUOTE(Julian @ Sep 1 2004, 11:33 AM)
Until then, passionate politics in public is doomed to be a minority interest, I fear.
Maybe. But people themselves appear to be particularly motivated and passionate about politics, at least this election cycle. And look at the convention speeches, processed? Yes. But there is still some passion. Remeber Rev. Sharpton at the DNC? And even Arnold was a little passionate. Of course, no one would accuse the hundreds of thousands protesting the RNC as lacking in passion.
I think the question extends further than has been approached. Politics is not a job like construction or accounting. Politics is the means to an end. So when we ask whether a politician is passionate about his job we have to first examine what the particular politicians job is, and why they do it. I think that everyone who has made it to a major elected office is passionate, but only a percentage of them are simply passionate about affecting policy to better the people of the US. In many cases it seems that it is the lure of power and money, and still others it's just dynasty. Bush for example, would NOT be in politics if his father wasn't. Bush is not passionate about his job. He's said himself that he hates briefings, reading, and being informed about his job. However Bush is passionate about his beliefs and uses the office as a medium to further those beliefs. I don't find that Kerry is much better, passion wise, and I don't want to analyze him now either.
I just wanted to stoke the fire of rationality on this site. Passion is an important subject, it is merely matters of taste that seperate us all, liberal or conservative, etc.
Does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
Well not lack of passion, but mixing and covering of passions. If every politician really aimed to better society, and made it obvious both with personal action and policy action, people would trust politicians. If people could trust politicians, then they could trust politics to be in their interest. If politics WAS in the interest of the everyman, the results would be far different than here in the US of Apathy.
I just wanted to stoke the fire of rationality on this site. Passion is an important subject, it is merely matters of taste that seperate us all, liberal or conservative, etc.
Does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
Well not lack of passion, but mixing and covering of passions. If every politician really aimed to better society, and made it obvious both with personal action and policy action, people would trust politicians. If people could trust politicians, then they could trust politics to be in their interest. If politics WAS in the interest of the everyman, the results would be far different than here in the US of Apathy.
Do you think our politicians are actually passionate about what they do?
On some level I think they have to be, otherwise the job wouldn't really be worth all the trouble.
However, I don't think that many of them choose to express that passion emotionally unless public opinion polls seem to suggest that it would help them politically. And to face facts, most politicians don't do anything unless they have run it through a few polls and focus groups first.
I would say that the one notable exception here in recent years is Howard Dean. Dean legitimately had a lot of passion for his ideas and wasn't afraid to express that passion in public. At the beginning it really fired up his base and got them excited, made people think they could make a difference. In the end it was his undoing and his opponents (and many people here) still snicker about it. That seems to demonstrate that having emotional passion about the job doesn't really pay off. I'm sure that there are other politicians than Dean that have tried this, but it is an example most people are familiar with.
Does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
I would think that the lack of interest has more to do with the fact that the issues generally haven't been as important in previous elections as they are now. Add in the fact that most political commentary and analysis is insufferably boring and that explains why people don't have an interest in politics.
If the discussion could be brought to a common denominator and people felt a little bit more ownership of the process and could see tangible results I think you'd see more interest.
On some level I think they have to be, otherwise the job wouldn't really be worth all the trouble.
However, I don't think that many of them choose to express that passion emotionally unless public opinion polls seem to suggest that it would help them politically. And to face facts, most politicians don't do anything unless they have run it through a few polls and focus groups first.
I would say that the one notable exception here in recent years is Howard Dean. Dean legitimately had a lot of passion for his ideas and wasn't afraid to express that passion in public. At the beginning it really fired up his base and got them excited, made people think they could make a difference. In the end it was his undoing and his opponents (and many people here) still snicker about it. That seems to demonstrate that having emotional passion about the job doesn't really pay off. I'm sure that there are other politicians than Dean that have tried this, but it is an example most people are familiar with.
Does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
I would think that the lack of interest has more to do with the fact that the issues generally haven't been as important in previous elections as they are now. Add in the fact that most political commentary and analysis is insufferably boring and that explains why people don't have an interest in politics.
If the discussion could be brought to a common denominator and people felt a little bit more ownership of the process and could see tangible results I think you'd see more interest.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Sep 1 2004, 12:03 AM)
Do you think our politicians are actually passionate about what they do?
does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
I believe a lot of them are passionate about their beliefs. Just because they don't walk around with smiles plastered on their faces like meandering village idiots
doesn't mean that they aren't excited about their respective ideology and beliefs. I believe that every politician upon first filing for office, acted on a set of beliefs that they themselves hold to be sacrosanct and believe would make this country better. I don't see how you could file for office for any other reason. 
I believe that apathy towards politics has nothing to do with the politicians, it isn't the job of politicians to entertain the people in order to get them "interested" in politics. If they did, they would be appealing to the lowest common denominator of our population.
Yeah, I think most politicians are quite passionate.
A little too darn passionate for me, in fact. What's turning me off politics isn't a lack of passion in our candidates, but a general tone of nastiness in elections. It would be nice to have a politician say "Vote for me because I support policies X, Y, and Z" instead of "Vote for me because the Other Guy is Evil Incarnate."
I'm not suggesting that appropriate emotions are out of place in politicians. (Although it's true that I'd vote for Spock or Data over most candidates.) What I'd like to see is the ability to stay cool shown by a JFK, who knew when to show dry wit, and who knew when to make a stirring speech.
A little too darn passionate for me, in fact. What's turning me off politics isn't a lack of passion in our candidates, but a general tone of nastiness in elections. It would be nice to have a politician say "Vote for me because I support policies X, Y, and Z" instead of "Vote for me because the Other Guy is Evil Incarnate."
I'm not suggesting that appropriate emotions are out of place in politicians. (Although it's true that I'd vote for Spock or Data over most candidates.) What I'd like to see is the ability to stay cool shown by a JFK, who knew when to show dry wit, and who knew when to make a stirring speech.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Sep 8 2004, 03:37 AM)
What I'd like to see is the ability to stay cool shown by a JFK, who knew when to show dry wit, and who knew when to make a stirring speech.
Victoria,
This reminds me of aan incident that occurred during the 1960 election.
Former President Harry Truman made whistle stop tour through Texas for John Kennedy. From the back of a railroad car, Truman said in one town "any Texan who votes for Nixon ought to go to hell."
The President of the Southern Baptist Convention at the time, a man named Ramsey Pollard, was offended by Truman's remark and said that Truman, a Baptist, should be thrown out of his church for using such language. Truman's pastor in Independence, Missouri informed Pollard that Baptist churches are autonomous and that his church would make its own membership decisions. Truman was not expelled from his church.
When asked about the incident Kennedy replied with characteristic wit, (I paraphrase here from memory) "While I understand President Truman's strong feelings (passion) about where our opponents should go, I have ask that our side not raise the religious issue."
I was unfortunately not anywhere near living in the times of JFK, but I really find it interesting to compare the speaking, and public persona of JFK with little Bush of today. Bush comes off as passionate almost all the time.
I have done a lot of speech and debate, and so I take pride in my ability to examine ones speaking style, I have done so with Bush. The pauses, the smirks, the intended power he puts into every terrorist reference, every prideful comment about America. I watched the republican convention speech and realized again that you are either greatly inspired by Bush, or ridiculously sickened. I am the latter.
Obviously passion can be either good or bad, never is it definitely one of those.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Sep 8 2004 @ 03:37 AM)
What I'd like to see is the ability to stay cool shown by a JFK, who knew when to show dry wit, and who knew when to make a stirring speech.
I have done a lot of speech and debate, and so I take pride in my ability to examine ones speaking style, I have done so with Bush. The pauses, the smirks, the intended power he puts into every terrorist reference, every prideful comment about America. I watched the republican convention speech and realized again that you are either greatly inspired by Bush, or ridiculously sickened. I am the latter.
Obviously passion can be either good or bad, never is it definitely one of those.
Do you think our politicians are actually passionate about what they do?
Given this, does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
Are politicians passionate? That depends on who you're talking about. I should hope that they are. I am not so sure.
I find it sad that, after reading Victorias post, she is right on the button, congradulations! It is sad that politicians are either loved, hated, or ignored.
Indeed, it would be great if we heard more than just sound bites from them.
I watched both conventions, and while there was a lot of applause for both, the RNC made me nauseaous not because of what they said, but because there was an applause after every sentence. That is ridiculous.
I will echo what others here have said, that the skilled orators of the past outwitted and outspoke and wrote far better speeches than those of today. Churchill and Roosevelt, Kennedy, Breshnev(!) all were masterful speakers.
Deans candidacy would have been great to watch had he gone further than Iowa. That was too bad, because for once people really were fired up for someone who had the balls to stand and deliver. But people realized he was too extreme, and America just wasn't ready for that.
I think many people just aren't into politics because they are too busy trying to pay the rent, or whatever. Four years ago I sure wasn't, but I voted for Nader.
Given this, does this lack of passion have anything to do with the precipitous decline in peoples' interest in politics?
Are politicians passionate? That depends on who you're talking about. I should hope that they are. I am not so sure.
I find it sad that, after reading Victorias post, she is right on the button, congradulations! It is sad that politicians are either loved, hated, or ignored.
Indeed, it would be great if we heard more than just sound bites from them.
I watched both conventions, and while there was a lot of applause for both, the RNC made me nauseaous not because of what they said, but because there was an applause after every sentence. That is ridiculous.
I will echo what others here have said, that the skilled orators of the past outwitted and outspoke and wrote far better speeches than those of today. Churchill and Roosevelt, Kennedy, Breshnev(!) all were masterful speakers.
Deans candidacy would have been great to watch had he gone further than Iowa. That was too bad, because for once people really were fired up for someone who had the balls to stand and deliver. But people realized he was too extreme, and America just wasn't ready for that.
I think many people just aren't into politics because they are too busy trying to pay the rent, or whatever. Four years ago I sure wasn't, but I voted for Nader.
I think Ralph Nader is passionate (if not exciting)about what he believes -- probably the main reason he doesn't stand a snowballs chance. 
The other two I'm convinced would say anything if they thought it would garner them votes. Both have been part of the system so long I think they've lost the gene responsible for an honest thought.
The other two I'm convinced would say anything if they thought it would garner them votes. Both have been part of the system so long I think they've lost the gene responsible for an honest thought.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.