How is the political system "toxic"?

[closeupready]

I don't understand what people mean by that. It's a new buzzword, it seems to me, to refer to politics, which has ALWAYS been nasty, especially for powerful spots like president. "Toxic" seems to mean, it's worse than nasty - uniquely nasty.

Can someone explain how precisely our system is toxic?

[DrunkenMaster]

1. simple

Exposure to toxicity causes illness: you cannot be exposed to American politics without being tainted by its virulence.

[closeupready]

2. Actually, I don't agree with that idea. because

it seems to me that what we are lacking is not a nurturing political system (which would be better, but even in the absence of that) but LEADERS. A leader, almost by definition, transcends the system in which he/she is operating. That is, a leader inspires, above and beyond the toxicity of the political system.

I understand why people today consider our system toxic, because we don't have effective leaders anymore, and it's been a long time since we did. Ergo, most people are too young to remember a time when leaders actually took charge.

[DrunkenMaster]

4. I dont want "leaders"

I want representation. Leaders tell people what to do, rperesentatives respond to the needs of the electorate. We've had far too much "leading" recently, IMHO.

[lectrobyte]

7. I'd like some leadership. Great leaders inspire. Would the 60s have

been the same without MLK and JFK, two of the best examples of "leaders" I can think of?

[DrunkenMaster]

10. great leaders "inspire"

yes, I can think of a few other "great leaders" in history who have "inspired" nations...

Seriously, though, MLK represented people, he didn't lead them. He was the symbol for a massive movemnet. JFK was a politican who has been lionized because he was good looking and died young. Please don't confuse the two.

[lectrobyte]

13. Harsh. So you don't think our leaders can inspire us towards good?

I don't consider MLK any less a leader because he wasn't in in politics. Would you consider Ghandi a leader? I would.

[DrunkenMaster]

11. I would also argue that while

occassionally in history leaders have worked toward making the world a better place, the massive majority of leaders historically have done the opposite.

The very concept of "leadership" teaches us to wait for people to tell us what to do -- it teaches us to be reliant, to ignore our own critical thought and to abdicate our autonomy.

You can have all the "leaders" you want, if that is what makes you feel safe. I personally would prefer a real democracy.

[lectrobyte]

14. You have a point, but to say that the majority are evil doesn't stop

me from wishing for an FDR instead of the Herbert Hoover we have now.

[closeupready]

15. I don't know - I think a leader can say to those they are representing,

"yes, I agree there is a problem, and my solution will work." I think you may be confusing dictatorship with leadership. They are distinct concepts.

A pure democracy would be nothing more than mob rule, and I don't think anybody wants that.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. Been Sayin' That For 25 Years

I don't need to be led. I just want these folks to do the job of representing the people and acting in our best interest.
The Professor

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Leaders are toxic

We've had enough of leadership and Fuhrerprinzip. Fuck all that. We don't need leaders. We need fewer leader-types.

[MADem]

3. It is actually the toxic MEDIA, not politics, that is toxic...NT

[originalpckelly]

9. No, politics is very toxic and it's disgusting.

And it always being that way is somewhat of a lie.

[MADem]

21. Well, we'll have to agree to differ. I don't think poltics has changed too much.

Politics has always been, before that combover Trump stole the phrase, the art of the deal. Quid pro quo, compromise, trade-offs, with the goal of moving the ball down the field, incrementally, for your team. It's not pure, but it never has been.

Nowadays, the micromanagement of the media in and of itself isn't the bad part, that's actually good in some respects--it's the Monday morning quarterbacking, the speculation, the lousy, incorrect guesses, the mischaracterization of intents, and the endless repitition of falsehoods that makes the process toxic. And I blame the talking bullshit artist heads for that. If they didn't play those games, and asked questions fairly, demanded straight answers, and called bullshit what it was instead of enabling the officials they agree with in plainly partisan fashion, this crap would be much more straightforward.

But I realize your mileage varies.

[dkofos]

6. I don't know about toxic, but untill polititions start representing

the PEOPLE we are screwed.

[Ron Green]

12. Ah, but which people?

Heavily-mortgaged, SUV-driving, McMansion-dwelling people?
Latte-drinking, museum-going, community-volunteering people?
Uninsured, cigarette-smoking, spouse-abusing people?
Wal*Mart-shopping, WWF-attending, kitsch-collecting people?

What elected officials can properly represent the interests (and whims) of all these subgroups? I suggest that leaders must be able to convey to people the higher and better values of a society, through not only policy decisions but mass communication. Pandering to masses of people in the grip of corporatist propaganda won't allow a very good future.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. "Getting into politics is like stepping into dogshit."

Line in a Latin-American movie (I don't recall which one) I recently saw.

[leftofthedial]

17. Capitalism corrupts and kills

our political system today is an artifact of Capitalsim

[meldroc]

18. The political system is toxic.

Twenty years ago, it wasn't nearly this bad. Sure Republicans and Democrats were still political enemies, spewing bile at each other, but there were limits. There were gentlemen's agreements, and civility. When the vote was finished, Democrats and Republicans would cross the aisle, chat with each other, and have lunch together. That doesn't happen anymore. When the Republican Revolution happened in 94, the Republicans wanted all the power, and made it clear they'd do anything to get it. The old gentleman's agreements were over. No more friendly talk across the aisles. The Democrats were locked out of the political process, and the GOP brought the level of aggression from mere rhetoric over differing positions to personal attacks. Swiftboatings, blacklistings, etc. were now standard operating procedure.

Now that the Democrats have control of Congress, they're trying to bring back some of the gentlemen's agreements and lower the toxicity level. But the Bush administration isn't going along. Their attacks and ploys are even more vicious now. It will take the departure or removal of the Bush administration, and quite a bit of time to return civility to DC.

[RedStateShame]

19. Because Republicans are involved.

[The2ndWheel]

20. Not toxic, it just doesn't work

The number of people in Congress today cannot "represent" hundreds of thousands or millions of people on average. Yet you can't increase the number of people in Congress, since even fewer people would have a say(only so many hours in a day...ahh, that rhymed).

So we're left with growing numbers of people, being represented by a smaller percentage of people, and those representatives listening to an even smaller group of people with large amounts of cash, which is required to run for office, which happens earlier every election cycle, leaving our representatives less time to represent us.

There's that, plus the overall trend of endless growth that politics requires(who votes for the person promising them less?), which will eventually completely toxify our habitat. Hey, what do you know, we found the toxic part!

[Selatius]

22. Too much special interest money in the election system is like mercury in your blood.

Just as enough mercury in your blood will kill you, enough special interest money in the system will kill representative democracy and replace it with an oligarchy.