Important aspects of society can be regional. I reside in an area in which there is a concentration of educational institutions. Meanwhile, rising costs of tertiary schooling and student loan debts that continue to pile up are obvious issues. In other parts of the country, national matters that are the same or different can be similarly topical: natural disasters, immigration, and crime come to mind immediately.
Persons who run for office may be able to affect relevant issues; it is also a possibility that they can simply exploit them in order to gain votes. In most cases, anyone campaigns because he or she wants to win. Traditionally, politicians identify with one of two political parties: the Democrats associated with liberalism or the left; and Republicans identifying as conservative and with the right. Data varies according to the source, but there is a sizable percentage of voters who are classified as independent and an essentially non-existent percentage of elected officials who identify that way. If you need votes, one way to gain them is through political party membership.
Ironically, it can seem that Democrats tend to eschew what might be known as “Grassroots” politics. Maybe when starting off a politician can try to work, or fight, against top-down structures. Who ultimately takes the time to champion what individual citizens have to say though? Maybe an office even replies to constituent correspondence? The message I persistently hear is that one should not follow issues too closely, or even watch debates, because your own opinion is not of consequence.
Locally, despite several failed attempts at running for president in recent elections, there are now two members of Congress who have declared new candidacies. There is Elizabeth Warren, a lawyer and former Harvard University employee who may be realizing she is not necessarily connected with the natives of the Commonwealth she represents, though her student debt idea might have merit. There is also Seth Moulton, a representative involved in a botched attempt to oust a leader of his own party, Nancy Pelosi. Since neither seems to care whether a defeat would perhaps suck away regional esteem, there must be separate motives. Particularly in Moulton’s case–though there is an outside chance of winning–he can take advantage of the national stage to enhance status as he is probable to be challenged by another Democrat for his current job as a representative. Incidentally, his only challenger to have declared a campaign evidently has not had a partisan identity until now.
These people, these Democrats, in my opinion or estimation, are not striving to represent individual citizens. They might need their votes, but not that badly. They may embrace leftward political positions but, as with Warren, not have time or initiative for constituents. To the extent that this is a problem, it can be worse when officials at the state level brazenly exhibit the same behavior. What they are is officeholders and you could need to either have some sort of sway, or mount a campaign and run against them, if there is a matter that they do not (already) see your way. Simultaneously, campaigning for higher office can bolster their status, even if they do not win.
Another topic is that there are lawyer-candidates for president. What seems unordinary is that some of them are former prosecutors (Inslee, Harris, maybe others). I suspect that they have at least tried, and perhaps secured convictions from, persons for marijuana offenses in the past; while Inslee and Harris are now important government officials in separate states that have legalized marijuana. Yet lawyers champion themselves on their authority with ethics–while their politics and administrative styles can be such that they effectively give no support to philosophy as a discipline.
Some things about public officeholders are not quite enamoring. Varied terms of differing strength might be tried to describe them, such as disingenuous, unethical, or hypocritical. Even when they identify with the left, they can disaffect their constituents as campaigning to move up beyond a regional position in our government can solidify their identity and recognition.
Persons who run for office may be able to affect relevant issues; it is also a possibility that they can simply exploit them in order to gain votes. In most cases, anyone campaigns because he or she wants to win. Traditionally, politicians identify with one of two political parties: the Democrats associated with liberalism or the left; and Republicans identifying as conservative and with the right. Data varies according to the source, but there is a sizable percentage of voters who are classified as independent and an essentially non-existent percentage of elected officials who identify that way. If you need votes, one way to gain them is through political party membership.
Ironically, it can seem that Democrats tend to eschew what might be known as “Grassroots” politics. Maybe when starting off a politician can try to work, or fight, against top-down structures. Who ultimately takes the time to champion what individual citizens have to say though? Maybe an office even replies to constituent correspondence? The message I persistently hear is that one should not follow issues too closely, or even watch debates, because your own opinion is not of consequence.
Locally, despite several failed attempts at running for president in recent elections, there are now two members of Congress who have declared new candidacies. There is Elizabeth Warren, a lawyer and former Harvard University employee who may be realizing she is not necessarily connected with the natives of the Commonwealth she represents, though her student debt idea might have merit. There is also Seth Moulton, a representative involved in a botched attempt to oust a leader of his own party, Nancy Pelosi. Since neither seems to care whether a defeat would perhaps suck away regional esteem, there must be separate motives. Particularly in Moulton’s case–though there is an outside chance of winning–he can take advantage of the national stage to enhance status as he is probable to be challenged by another Democrat for his current job as a representative. Incidentally, his only challenger to have declared a campaign evidently has not had a partisan identity until now.
These people, these Democrats, in my opinion or estimation, are not striving to represent individual citizens. They might need their votes, but not that badly. They may embrace leftward political positions but, as with Warren, not have time or initiative for constituents. To the extent that this is a problem, it can be worse when officials at the state level brazenly exhibit the same behavior. What they are is officeholders and you could need to either have some sort of sway, or mount a campaign and run against them, if there is a matter that they do not (already) see your way. Simultaneously, campaigning for higher office can bolster their status, even if they do not win.
Another topic is that there are lawyer-candidates for president. What seems unordinary is that some of them are former prosecutors (Inslee, Harris, maybe others). I suspect that they have at least tried, and perhaps secured convictions from, persons for marijuana offenses in the past; while Inslee and Harris are now important government officials in separate states that have legalized marijuana. Yet lawyers champion themselves on their authority with ethics–while their politics and administrative styles can be such that they effectively give no support to philosophy as a discipline.
Some things about public officeholders are not quite enamoring. Varied terms of differing strength might be tried to describe them, such as disingenuous, unethical, or hypocritical. Even when they identify with the left, they can disaffect their constituents as campaigning to move up beyond a regional position in our government can solidify their identity and recognition.