Created in 2009
I'm interested in seeing answers to this.
A career politician is what someone who runs for office and loses calls the winner.
Knowing the context would be interesting... But you asked. It's only really used in criticism - nobody calls themselves a career politician. "Lifelong public servant", perhaps... Generally, the implication is that whoever uses this term has more relatable, real-world, non-political experience. For Democrats in Massachusetts, perhaps it's a subtle reference to popular figures who came late to politics, like Deval Patrick or Elizabeth Warren.Like any other political speech, a candidate's supporters find it beautiful and detractors find it, at best, meaningless.
The term.."Career Politician" only exists as an attack on a current office holder in the mind of a person wanting to unseat an incumbent.As in the literature Ward 5 received.Over the years, on the Federal and State levels, there have been and still are, many qualified persons who continue to be elected; with many years of tenure, who have served well in the public eye.I don't believe, to the average intelligent voter, the term "Career Politician" will influence garnering a vote for the person wanting to unseat an incumbent.
A person charging an elected person as being a "career politician" forgets one important fact: the incumbent enjoys a long tenure for one reason only; he/she is doing a good job, and is re-elected for that reason.In other words, he/she's "career" tenure is not determined by the politician; but by the voting public; a reward for doing a great job.
In a way, labeling an incumbent as a "career politician" could be taken as a compliment. Representing voting constituents well begets another term or terms.
Politics and public service is the only career in which actually holding the job (or similar jobs) in the past is considered a negative.Next time I have surgery, I don't want one of those lousy, untrustworthy "career surgeons." Give me the carpenter any day, he's "new blood."
The re-election rate of incumbents in the US Congress in 2012 was 90%. Yet at the same time, the public approval ratings for Congress were consistently below 10%. So I don't buy the theory that politicians get returned to office because everyone thinks they're doing such a great job. Voter apathy is probably more like it. For example, turnout in primary elections is commonly under 30%. Sometimes worse. All a candidate needs is a good pool of hardcore supporters/beneficiaries, and a smattering of regular voters, and they've finagled themselves another term.
The subject applying to prior posts is about individuals, not the entity body as a whole; basically dealing with Somerville pols and wannabe pols, as brought forth by Ward 5.Public approval ratings of Congress apply to Congress as a whole, and Congressmen voting party lines which is often the case; and the problem resulting in low public approval ratings.That does not say individual Congressmen are not still held in high esteem by their constituents.As far as "voter apathy" nothing new there. All legal, end results stand!
For example, using a sports team as an analogy.There may be some very good players on the team; but, the team as a whole is a losing team.Red Sox for one!
Michael Capuano, elected to Congress in 1998, membership including the year 2012; the 10% Congress approval year cited by the above; and he was re-elected six times---why?Because he is a no-nonsense, tell it like it is guy; doing a great job in the voter's eyes.The 2012 10% Congress approval rate would be a stretch if applied him.; and some others in that year.
Back to Ward 5 asking for a definition of "Career Politician." one who has an objective of fulfilling the necessary tenure to qualify for a pension and possibly other benefits such a health coverage, upon retirement.
For those politicians who want to do it right and emulate Mr. Capuano. It's very difficult to soar like an eagle when surrounded by turkeys.
A poster above stated: "voter apathy is more likely why a person gets re-elected."Begs a question, albeit rhetorical!Would the outcome be any different if voter turnout be more like 80/90%?No guarantee that it would!
The above poster who cited a public 10% congressional approval rate for the year 2012 failed to note one important fact for that year; the country was mired in a recession; job losses, homes being foreclosed, etc.No wonder Americans who were polled were not happy with Congress.
Post a Comment