A few days ago, Stephen Colbert's guest, David Brooks, described elected officials as actors playing a role. He was referring to their cordial actions and 'discussion' of bipartisanship during the healthcare summit, but I think that representatives are just actors.Elected officials have to act likeable. They have to act like they believe that everything they are doing is in the interest of the 'people.' Is there really a difference between a speech and a scene?
Then, what came to mind were all the actors-cum-elected officials. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan being the most notable.
The people who win elections are rarely the most qualified or the ones with the best fiscal plans, they are the ones that people hear and trust. Hilary Clinton didn't play the part of the woman of the house well enough and it cost her dearly. Sarah Palin played the role of housewife too much and didn't play the part of intellectual enough. I am not saying that it is a positive attribute of our democracy, but most political analysts will say the same thing about actors and representatives.
I think that most politicians care about what they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing what they do! It takes an incredible amount of time, effort, brain power, and social/public speaking skills to be a politician. In order to do be capable of all of that, they must really be interested in what they do (no one is forcing them).
ReplyDeleteThat is what I always thought, but think about it. I have come to the conclusion that there are ways to make people's lives better making far less money and being less active in the public spotlight. Why do politicians become politicians instead of starting non-profits?
ReplyDelete