General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Just when I was really starting to like her, AOC had to come out and say, [View all]LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)and it is dumb when applied to politicians I like and don't like as well.
People run for office to GET ATTENTION to causes they felt strongly about, hence the passion and desire to run for office. For which that effort and participation in the democracy should be applauded for that alone.
Because you could randomly apply the only "craves attention" to anyone that has a job in the public eye. Including actors and musicians and writers. Now that might be the reason for some, although politics is a pretty harsh choice to sign up for, if you only want attention for the sake of it. Starting a YouTube channel would be much less stressful.
Also, where is the line drawn between genuinely believing in what you are saying, running for office because you think that that message is not being put out there enough.........and just spouting hot button things just to raise your profile. Are you the judge of that?
Others, deplorables for instance, might say MLK was just an uppity n. who just did it for the attention. Or Ghandi. Or Obama. Or Hillary. That it wasn't that they stood up and became leaders because they actually believed in their platforms, and that they could help the country, but that it was all done just for some general "attention" seeking.
One of the reasons people hopefully run for office in a democracy is to expose issues that they feel are not being exposed enough. (Like the US's blind billions of dollar support to Israel for instance) How can you be some kind of arbitrator on who is actually just passionate about an issue, and who is speaking out, disingenuously, just to get on the news, or to go down in history and have a holiday named after them?