By LISA MASCARO (AP Congressional Correspondent) WASHINGTON (AP) — Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday that she will seek reelection to Congress in 2024 as Democrats try to win back…
Also curious why not. Being in a career allows for the development of skills and relationships over time, and there’s certainly an art to building relationships and getting deals done that could improve the more someone is in office.
I agree with you in theory, but really, is that how it often plays out in reality? It doesn’t seem to me that our most senior politicians are generally the most effective. In fact it seems the opposite, they usually tend to be the most corrupt (as measured by the suspiciously huge net worths they have), and the most entrenched in party lines, to the point that they’re not any more effective than any rank and file politician who just does what the party whip says.
They do tend to be given more authority in committees and such, but I’d argue that doesn’t have much to do with them actually being effective.
Our congress is filled with career politicians, and the whole thing is a circus
Building relationships and making deals is part of the problem funnily enough. Career politicians are more susceptible to corruption lobbying. IMO representatives should be every day Americans not the successor to a political dynasty or someone who spends most of their life in DC under the impression that they are representing the beliefs of people on the other side of the country.
No one man should have the power of someone with 50 years in office.
Yeah, I feel the same way about this. Why is it okay to have a career in virtually any other form of expertise, but we want a bunch of amateurs running government?
I just don’t get this sentiment, at all. I understand the frustration with government and how flawed it is (because people are flawed), but I don’t understand why the same people who don’t seek “outsiders” and amateurs to, say, drill their teeth or do open heart surgery, will turn around and frown on expertise in government.
Also curious why not. Being in a career allows for the development of skills and relationships over time, and there’s certainly an art to building relationships and getting deals done that could improve the more someone is in office.
I agree with you in theory, but really, is that how it often plays out in reality? It doesn’t seem to me that our most senior politicians are generally the most effective. In fact it seems the opposite, they usually tend to be the most corrupt (as measured by the suspiciously huge net worths they have), and the most entrenched in party lines, to the point that they’re not any more effective than any rank and file politician who just does what the party whip says.
They do tend to be given more authority in committees and such, but I’d argue that doesn’t have much to do with them actually being effective.
Our congress is filled with career politicians, and the whole thing is a circus
Building relationships and making deals is part of the problem funnily enough. Career politicians are more susceptible to
corruptionlobbying. IMO representatives should be every day Americans not the successor to a political dynasty or someone who spends most of their life in DC under the impression that they are representing the beliefs of people on the other side of the country.No one man should have the power of someone with 50 years in office.
This is why I mentioned getting the money out of politics. That’s the crux of the problem, not having people serve for their lives in government.
Yeah, I feel the same way about this. Why is it okay to have a career in virtually any other form of expertise, but we want a bunch of amateurs running government?
I just don’t get this sentiment, at all. I understand the frustration with government and how flawed it is (because people are flawed), but I don’t understand why the same people who don’t seek “outsiders” and amateurs to, say, drill their teeth or do open heart surgery, will turn around and frown on expertise in government.
Why?