Politicians - What do we expect? (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

What is it that we expect of a politician here in Australia? Do we seek a sense of normality that is moderated by a marked degree of inhuman restraint and civility? What about gendered expectations? For example, I refer those with an interest to the Brogden saga, the flak that Gillard received after letting a photographer into her kitchen and the current furore surrounding Latham's diaries (see www.abc.net.au/lateline for the Lateline Interview).


Edit: Stateline - Taking the Bear Out

State Parliament resumed after the long winter recess this week, but it wasn't the bearpit anymore. Gone were the theatrics and the snarling put-downs. Without Bob Carr as premier and John Brogden as Opposition leader, we observed a changed political landscape with emerging religious overtones.
...
The battle of the cleanskins started with a handshake. After the tumultuous events of the winter recess, in which Bob Carr broke a public commitment and quit as premier mid-term and John Brogden dramatically resigned as Opposition leader after an internal Liberal Party campaign to assassinate his character, Morris Iemma, as Premier, and Peter Debnam, as Opposition leader, were courteous and restrained.
...
Before too long it became clear that Morris Iemma is no Bob Carr when it came to making political points with a barb and a theatrical flourish. The new Premier's bearpit style is workman-like, but tortuously repetitive.[...]

 

[erawamai]

Barry Jones just made the point on the 730 report that we focus too much on personal politics today rather than on the policies.

 

[King of Helview]

I think you will find our mentality towards our politicians stems from the British attitudes where there is an intense focus on the personal life

In response to the original post I think that the most vital thing for a politician or leader is his/her character

Poor leaders are weak, indecisive or too quickly influenced

Average politicians have a, to quote Generator, "sense of normality that is moderated by a marked degree of inhuman restraint and civility"

Great leaders however are charismatic, strong willed and have a clear vision.

I think it is possibly the most important thing for a politician to have character.

The leaders that are remembered are the charismatic, strong willed and clear. This is what Australians should look for in their leaders and I believe we have already had some leaders that are, agree with their decisions or not, great. These include Curtin, Whitlam and Howard, even Keating may deserve a mention.

The point is that for Australia to be taken more seriously on a world stagte we need to have leaders who demonstrate the characteristics of other greats, like Hitler, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. I know they are ridiculously high standards to set but one day perhaps it could come to fruition

 

[Iron]

I think that's the point. The media/system/satanists force politicians to have a thick skin - the stamina to be repetitive, bland and monotoned etc. Menzies, Howard ....and Kim are great examples. We just accept that they need to conceal their views/say non-words/lie or the press will feed off their meaty caucus'.
The media is the most monstrously concieved communist plot since the fluridation of water. The only way to stop them is to starve them - to starve them you become old/boring/unimaginative - not particularly newsworthy. Is that in the national interest?

 

[braindrainedAsh]

Gender expectations are huge in Australian politics- people either want the women to be ballbreakers, and it seems to some extent that women have to abandon much of their femininity in order to succeed in any way. The way the media and the political sphere percieve and judge female politicians is also very unfair. There was an article in the Herald a few weeks ago about Gillards makeover since the last election. You would NEVER see an article about a male politician trying a new hairstyle. It's extremely condescending- also how the criticized Gillard for not having milk in the fridge in that photo in her kitchen. It's just bullshit. The patriarchy still very much exists in Australian politics- the only way women can get in to the boys club is to take on a more "masculine" persona to be taken seriously.

I think that we do to a certain degree expect our politicians to lack humanity to a certain extent- but only in certain areas. People want to see happy shots of Iemma with his kids in the park the day after he won the premiership, but if Iemma ever said "I'm going to cancel a press conference today because my kid is sick" people would probably react very differently. It's like we almost expect our politicans to be robots to the party line and to their job- they aren't allowed to show who they really are beyond some stereotypical images e.g. talking to kids in schools, making a remark about that they hope their local footy team win on the weekend etc. And when they do err, the nation jumps on them so they won't make the same mistake twice. Brogden is a perfect example- his attempted suicide should be waking up people to the fact that politicians are PEOPLE. They have feelings, stresses, problems etc. And do you know what? That to me is what we need. We need more PEOPLE and PERSONALITIES in Australian politics instead of drones that simply tow the party line.

I mean, recent example, Sophie Panapoulos and Bronny and the headscarves rant. Totally stupid what they said, but at least Sophie Panapoulos says stupid things sometimes because she reckons she is right (e.g. calling Petro Georgiou a "political terrorist" for wanting to cross the floor on detention policy changes). It's probably because she is from Wodonga, but there is a total lack of personality in Australian politics at the moment. It's like boring drone land. Latham was probably the last person that even resembled a polly with some personality recently, and look where it has got him lol.

I don't understand why we

a) Vote for boring baby boomer drones all the time- we need charismatic politicians. And anyone who says Johnny is TRULY charismatic needs a bit of a head check- compared to Keating, Whitlam and others he is very boring.
b) Condemn anyone who has a view that differs somewhat from their party line. We need that to foster healthy democracy, I really hate the way we expect politicians simply to tow the party line and get mad when someone doesn't. We should vote in people that actually have their own ideas rather than "Liberal party policy 101" or "How to make Labor look mildly unified 101"
c) Don't have a bloody opposition in this country at the moment! Why is Kim back! I agree with Latham on this one, he is not leadership material, he is not charismatic and the opposition is so piss weak. Maybe if we voted in some interesting people who have life stories and ideas and vision, maybe they don't have milk in the fridge and maybe they are "battlers" or from the "aspirational suburbs", I don't care, but we need some more diverse voices and fresh faces.

In my opinion Australian politics is looking tired and old at the moment- we have had the same government in power for too long, and tragically I really doubt Labor can get their act together for the next election. And for christs sake, why aren't there more women in politics in Australia? NZ has had a female prime minister, we don't even see many women with important portfolios.

I think Australians really need to stop voting for these party drones and vote for people with personality and humanity. They are too restrained- I mean they might heckle a bit in parliament but it is all in defence of the party, not necessarily in defence of their own opinions and ideas.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

I think that's the point. The media/system/satanists force politicians to have a thick skin - the stamina to be repetitive, bland and monotoned etc. Menzies, Howard ....and Kim are great examples. We just accept that they need to conceal their views/say non-words/lie or the press will feed off their meaty caucus'.
The media is the most monstrously concieved communist plot since the fluridation of water. The only way to stop them is to starve them - to starve them you become old/boring/unimaginative - not particularly newsworthy. Is that in the national interest?

See I think a major problem lies with the massive increase in the PR industry- it's very hard for the media today to get past the spin cycle. If you are in the parliamentary press gang and go out too far on a limb, the politicians cut off your access. Without any access, even to the spin, you have no news. Hence you have no job. It's a very difficult predicament, and one that is very much contributing to the problems we have been talking about in this thread. Has anyone read any of Halls theories of social production? Basically the current situation in Australian political reporting is that the politicians are able to be the primary definers of news stories, and journalists are the secondary definers- they essentially can only repackage the information given to them by politicians and the pollys spin departments. Every political media event is staged, someone was even telling me it is getting harder and harder to do doorstop interviews etc.

And then you also have problems in political reporting with the secretive spin cycle, the one that brought down Latham. "Confidential sources" within the parties feed rumors to the media and can eat away and bring down some of their own without even revealing their own identities. They can very much manipulate the media on a very invisible level. Did anyone see the media watch critique of media coverage of Brogden's suicide attempt? Liz Jackson pointed out that the bigger story rather than the salacious rumours about Brogden was that members of his own party were feeding these rumours to the media while remaining nameless.

There are many problems with political reporting at the moment, it's hard to figure out what the solutions are because the pollies do wield a lot of influence and power.

 

[dimzi]

I would at least expect them to be honest.

But with most of them coming from a background of law, thats pretty much unheard of.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I would at least expect them to be honest.

But with most of them coming from a background of law, thats pretty much unheard of.

May be of interest

 

[withoutaface]

Gender expectations are huge in Australian politics- people either want the women to be ballbreakers, and it seems to some extent that women have to abandon much of their femininity in order to succeed in any way.

Don't forget that most of the men have to be ballbusters too, you don't see many shy, successful politicians from either gender, and I think that this is more because of an inherent principle in politics rather than an oppressive patriachal system.

 

[erawamai]

Don't forget that most of the men have to be ballbusters too, you don't see many shy, successful politicians from either gender, and I think that this is more because of an inherent principle in politics rather than an oppressive patriachal system.

Ashes point is true. To succeed in Business/ politics whatever you have to be reasonably ALFA. Most guys are born with this. Most guys are VERY adversarial. Many guys like to argue for the sake of arguing to prove themselves right. For the sake of ego, for the sake of Alphaness. What do you think we are all doing on this forum?

Feminist groups accuse female judges of not being female enough . The question is whether law, politics and business are inherently male. Some say yes.

But many girls have it too. It's just less of them feel the need to make it to big business or politics because all that goes on up there is alot of metaphorical penis measuring.

I would at least expect them to be honest.

But with most of them coming from a background of law, thats pretty much unheard of.

Too many law students on this forum to be saying such things.

 

[Captain pi]

I would like to see each politician highlight something wrong with his or her position or policy every week; I want politicians to seek to disconfirm, rather than confirm.

 

[John The Great]

I would like to see each politician highlight something wrong with his or her position or policy every week; I want politicians to seek to disconfirm, rather than confirm.

What is this? Why even bother with such an absurd comment? What you have just 'wanted' is anarchy, and the destruction of mankind.

 

[John The Great]

In reference to King's comment, a successful party relies entirely on a successful leader. Man requires an individual to whom they can acknowledge power. To who they can praise and to who they can complain and blame etc. Responsibility as such rests with this leader, as Hitler, a highly successful politician wrote in Mein Kampf. History has shown this to be true.

 

[John The Great]

Gender expectations are huge in Australian politics- people either want the women to be ballbreakers, and it seems to some extent that women have to abandon much of their femininity in order to succeed in any way. The way the media and the political sphere percieve and judge female politicians is also very unfair. There was an article in the Herald a few weeks ago about Gillards makeover since the last election. You would NEVER see an article about a male politician trying a new hairstyle. It's extremely condescending- also how the criticized Gillard for not having milk in the fridge in that photo in her kitchen. It's just bullshit. The patriarchy still very much exists in Australian politics- the only way women can get in to the boys club is to take on a more "masculine" persona to be taken seriously.

I think that we do to a certain degree expect our politicians to lack humanity to a certain extent- but only in certain areas. People want to see happy shots of Iemma with his kids in the park the day after he won the premiership, but if Iemma ever said "I'm going to cancel a press conference today because my kid is sick" people would probably react very differently. It's like we almost expect our politicans to be robots to the party line and to their job- they aren't allowed to show who they really are beyond some stereotypical images e.g. talking to kids in schools, making a remark about that they hope their local footy team win on the weekend etc. And when they do err, the nation jumps on them so they won't make the same mistake twice. Brogden is a perfect example- his attempted suicide should be waking up people to the fact that politicians are PEOPLE. They have feelings, stresses, problems etc. And do you know what? That to me is what we need. We need more PEOPLE and PERSONALITIES in Australian politics instead of drones that simply tow the party line.

I mean, recent example, Sophie Panapoulos and Bronny and the headscarves rant. Totally stupid what they said, but at least Sophie Panapoulos says stupid things sometimes because she reckons she is right (e.g. calling Petro Georgiou a "political terrorist" for wanting to cross the floor on detention policy changes). It's probably because she is from Wodonga, but there is a total lack of personality in Australian politics at the moment. It's like boring drone land. Latham was probably the last person that even resembled a polly with some personality recently, and look where it has got him lol.

I don't understand why we

a) Vote for boring baby boomer drones all the time- we need charismatic politicians. And anyone who says Johnny is TRULY charismatic needs a bit of a head check- compared to Keating, Whitlam and others he is very boring.
b) Condemn anyone who has a view that differs somewhat from their party line. We need that to foster healthy democracy, I really hate the way we expect politicians simply to tow the party line and get mad when someone doesn't. We should vote in people that actually have their own ideas rather than "Liberal party policy 101" or "How to make Labor look mildly unified 101"
c) Don't have a bloody opposition in this country at the moment! Why is Kim back! I agree with Latham on this one, he is not leadership material, he is not charismatic and the opposition is so piss weak. Maybe if we voted in some interesting people who have life stories and ideas and vision, maybe they don't have milk in the fridge and maybe they are "battlers" or from the "aspirational suburbs", I don't care, but we need some more diverse voices and fresh faces.

In my opinion Australian politics is looking tired and old at the moment- we have had the same government in power for too long, and tragically I really doubt Labor can get their act together for the next election. And for christs sake, why aren't there more women in politics in Australia? NZ has had a female prime minister, we don't even see many women with important portfolios.

I think Australians really need to stop voting for these party drones and vote for people with personality and humanity. They are too restrained- I mean they might heckle a bit in parliament but it is all in defence of the party, not necessarily in defence of their own opinions and ideas.

Successful politicians are those who can associate with the proletariat. Those who have the charismatic personality, who the people can identify with and understand and most importantly respect. Once again this is all in relation to the individual assuming responsibilty as expounded by Hitler and others. One of the greatest problems with Parliment is that it attempts to take responsibilty away from the individual. It attempts to give power to many, which is incapable of success by its very nature. As a result many lesser men can attain shared power, such as you have listed and they are incapable of the position. The simple solution to these problems is totalitarianism. This allows for the ultimate success of a people, and the individual can truly be held responsible rather than the weak group that constitutes parliment. As only the strong personalities achieve power in such a system, and the weak are left to themselves.

However we should certainly condemn anyone who's thoughts differ from their party under a parlimentary system. That is the entire reason for parties, that they have a fixed ideology, by which the people can associate them with. If a person wishes to do something differently then they shouldnt be in that party, but should create a new party that alligns itself with that doctrine. Your idea that it promotes 'healthy democracy' is absurd. it promotes disunity and an even weaker ruling party.

"And for christs sake, why aren't there more women in politics in Australia?" very simply it is a truth universally acknowledged that women are incapable of rational thought and any type of rule. Read Aristotle's works for this philosophy, or St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, the entire Christian doctrine, and many many more. The major traditional religions are patriarchal, and they greatly influence politics, as is the case in Australia. Women are incapable of rule, are easily influenced and tricked, and generally tend to be more debauch in their behaviour. They cant achieve the same intellectual levels of males, and can not thus rule a nation, particularly not a successful nation. All Christians here should realise such Church Doctrine and not ignore it, as is often the case.

 

[John The Great]

Haha, the irony. How the hell have you linked Captain pi's post to anarchy. And how is anarchy the destruction of mankind?

Alright damage ink you small minded individual. He wanted disconformity. That results in anarchy. If there is total freedom, and no conformity among political thought, then there is no order. There can be no success in such a state. This collapse of rule, results in the destruction of the weak masses, who can not survive without such rule. Hence the destruction of mankind. I suppose you dont know what anarchy is though, with a comment such as that. Perhaps rather than sitting there like an uniformed individual, you should realise the implications of Nietzsche's thoughts, and not then question them in such a simple manner. I assume you havent apart from not reading any Nietzsche, read any Marx. being the case, how can you comment on political science, with no knowledge of the field?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

"And for christs sake, why aren't there more women in politics in Australia?" very simply it is a truth universally acknowledged that women are incapable of rational thought and any type of rule. Read Aristotle's works for this philosophy, or St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, the entire Christian doctrine, and many many more. The major traditional religions are patriarchal, and they greatly influence politics, as is the case in Australia. Women are incapable of rule, are easily influenced and tricked, and generally tend to be more debauch in their behaviour. They cant achieve the same intellectual levels of males, and can not thus rule a nation, particularly not a successful nation. All Christians here should realise such Church Doctrine and not ignore it, as is often the case.

No-one here is going to take you seriously with ridiculous unfounded views like that.

I note that you have found your way to the News, Current Affairs & Politics section. While I am not directly responsible for what you have been doing in the history section, I warn you now of the Forum Rules.

 

[sunjet]

John the great and King of Belview have made their way into N&CA, oh god.

 

[rama_v]

Care me to introduce you to the views of the newbies:

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=76039&page=5&pp=15

And here is background on Nietzsche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche

It is worth noting that Nietzsche's thought largely stands opposed to Nazism. In particular, Nietzsche despised anti-Semitism (which partially led to his falling out with composer Richard Wagner) and nationalism. He took a dim view of German culture as it was in his time, and derided both the state and populism. As the joke goes: "Nietzsche detested Nationalism, Socialism, Germans and mass movements, so naturally he was adopted as the intellectual mascot of the National Socialist German Workers' Party." He was also far from being a racist, believing that the "vigour" of any population could only be increased by mixing with others. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche says, "...the concept of 'pure blood' is the opposite of a harmless concept."

 

[Sarah]

However we should certainly condemn anyone who's thoughts differ from their party under a parlimentary system. That is the entire reason for parties, that they have a fixed ideology, by which the people can associate them with. If a person wishes to do something differently then they shouldnt be in that party, but should create a new party that alligns itself with that doctrine. Your idea that it promotes 'healthy democracy' is absurd. it promotes disunity and an even weaker ruling party.

Have you read Orwell's 1984? What you said reminds me of that book.

There's risks associated when you don't allow for alternatives to be expressed e.g Group think and group polarisation -> lack of viewpoints expressed, poor decision making

"And for christs sake, why aren't there more women in politics in Australia?" very simply it is a truth universally acknowledged that women are incapable of rational thought and any type of rule. Read Aristotle's works for this philosophy, or St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, the entire Christian doctrine, and many many more. The major traditional religions are patriarchal, and they greatly influence politics, as is the case in Australia. Women are incapable of rule, are easily influenced and tricked, and generally tend to be more debauch in their behaviour. They cant achieve the same intellectual levels of males, and can not thus rule a nation, particularly not a successful nation. All Christians here should realise such Church Doctrine and not ignore it, as is often the case.

Those words i've highlighted sound very Jane Austen-like. Not sure why you're using her words to highlight your point considering she's quite a successful femal author.

I think a lot of Christians are aware of the context in which scriptures were written in. Also, I haven't seen anywhere that's stated women are "easily influenced and tricked, and generally tend to be more debauch in their behaviour". Neither have i read anywhere that "they can't achieve the same intellectual levels of males".

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Those words i've highlighted sound very Jane Austen-like. Not sure why you're using her words to highlight your point considering she's quite a successful femal author.

hahaha

magnificent