Point of original downturn?

I would be interested in seeing the opinions of people regarding when they believe politics as a whole began to be a corrupted festival.
Is there one specific time or event that turned the landscape downwards in the political realm?

(I have my guess but I wanna see other opinions first just to gauge any input)

It's been corrupt for a long time actually. It's been sprinkled with stuff over the decades. I don't think people paid much attention nor gave a shit till Nixon and his crap. But it's been becoming mor prevalent in the last 10 years. The GOP had lots of it during their control of congressional years under Bush. Now we're seeing the same exact shit from the Democrats. The problem is the media and their selective coverage.

Well, just going by what I actually remember, I would say Reagan. Probably even more than his politics, it was that he (IMO) aligned himself with the "religious right". That peed me off! And there was no need for it. In the early-mid 80's I was a teen, heavily into music (of various types) and I remember hearing a lot about how certain music was "bad". Hell, the at-the-time Secretary of the Interior, James Watt made a legendary comment about how "bad" an "influence" the Beach Boys were. And that just blew my mind! Of course (and also in sharing the blame), a few years later the PMRC (yes you, Tipper!) took it to a whole new level. It was wrong IMO and twenty-five years later, the music industry still hasn't recovered. It's still very watered-down from what it was. And then there was Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al. They were staunchly "conservative" and they peed me off to no end. I'm sorry, but if I'm in my own room, I can read Penthouse or Hustler or anything-the-hell-else that I want.

i_luv_miley wrote:Well, just going by what I actually remember, I would say Reagan. Probably even more than his politics, it was that he (IMO) aligned himself with the "religious right". That peed me off! And there was no need for it. In the early-mid 80's I was a teen, heavily into music (of various types) and I remember hearing a lot about how certain music was "bad". Hell, the at-the-time Secretary of the Interior, James Watt made a legendary comment about how "bad" an "influence" the Beach Boys were. And that just blew my mind! Of course (and also in sharing the blame), a few years later the PMRC (yes you, Tipper!) took it to a whole new level. It was wrong IMO and twenty-five years later, the music industry still hasn't recovered. It's still very watered-down from what it was. And then there was Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al. They were staunchly "conservative" and they peed me off to no end. I'm sorry, but if I'm in my own room, I can read Penthouse or Hustler or anything-the-hell-else that I want.

What about congressional corruption though? This topic is more geared towards political corruption. In fact, i'd leave presidents out of it and go after congress-critters. Some have been in office longer than Pope John Paul II was Pope. The problem here is term limits. People seem to like it for presidents but not their congress. I don't quite get that. Most of the corruption is from those who've been in there for a decade or more. They learn the system and game it.

As for the PMRC, they were led by Al Gore's wife. It didn't matter to me who she was (which i knew back then, btw) but for what she was doing. It amazes me how people decry that and applaud other things that people try to restrict. I always say that when someone applauds restrictions on whatever, to watch out because the next thing to be hammered will be something they like.

Well, congressionally speaking, I really didn't begin paying attention to them until the 1994 election. Before that though, I do recall that the savings and loan debaucle got a lot of negative coverage. But I can't say it bothered me one way or the other since at the time I just didn't understand it. Since 1994 though, I've paid more attention to congress - and yeah, I agree both sides have pulled a lot of stuff. But I guess by the mid-90's, I figured they were all just playing politics.

Corruption and the war brought down the GOP in 2006. The same fate is looming for the Dems except it's going to be corruption, economy and spending.

JMO, of course.

Politicians/rulers have always been corrupt. Every political system throughout history has had its flaws and abusers. The Greeks, the Romans, the Arab kingdoms, the European kingdoms, and the rest of the world were all corrupt and in many cases criminal, oppressive and hungry for more and more power.
That's human nature. Most of the people want to become more and more powerful when put into a powerful position. Only a handful of people are immune to that.

I agree with bubblebliss, politics and politicians have always been corrupt. The Roman Republic became an Empire because the Senate had become corrupt.

I think the only difference these days is that they can no longer get away with it. We are in an age of information where everything is scrutinised so much more. We also have a proactive media determined to sensationalise everything.

Corruption is not more prevalent these days than in any other period of history it only iseems to be because of how easy it is to uncover things and publicise it.

Well, that's what i was saying... they're all corrupt regardless what party they belong to. But to counter what you said, i think the corruption is more prevalent when they're in office longer than usual.

I would also agree with that sentiment. I think it has shown in both the last Tory (18 years) and Labour (13 years) governments here. It is as though the MPs eventually felt they were untouchable, only to be brought back down to earth come the election.

13 years of Labour rule means that if this coalition generally receives positive reflections in five years time, means that they have a very real danger of being the third party in 2015. Unlikely due to where their powerbase lies, but I can dream

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:It is as though the MPs eventually felt they were untouchable, only to be brought back down to earth come the election.

That's it right there. Your MP's and our representatives along with Senators feel superior after several years. Well, Arlen Specter lost in the primary 2 months ago after being a Senator since the 60's. He found out the hard way that people eventually wake up or eventually get pissed off.

Term-limits is the magic word.

I'm not against term limits. But I'm definitely not for them either. Of course, I can see what Tex says, about how the longer they stay in, the more "corrupt" they "can" become. I do buy that to an extent... But I don't think it has to be like that. I'd like to think that some people (at least at one point in the past, no doubt) that some actually got into politics because they wanted to do good. So given that, I also think that experience is quite important. Hence, why I'm definitely not for term limits. I mean, one can only learn so much of "the game" (of politics) in one or two terms. And what if that person decides to go to higher office? Is one or terms in congress enough experience for the Presidency? Personally, I would rather have someone run for President who knows "the game" inside and out - and that only comes with experience.

Well, the President himself does not hold that much knowledge and experience himself anyways. He has tons of advisors and he relies more on them when it's time to make a decision than he does on his own knowledge.

i_luv_miley wrote:I'm not against term limits. But I'm definitely not for them either. Of course, I can see what Tex says, about how the longer they stay in, the more "corrupt" they "can" become. I do buy that to an extent... But I don't think it has to be like that. I'd like to think that some people (at least at one point in the past, no doubt) that some actually got into politics because they wanted to do good. So given that, I also think that experience is quite important. Hence, why I'm definitely not for term limits. I mean, one can only learn so much of "the game" (of politics) in one or two terms. And what if that person decides to go to higher office? Is one or terms in congress enough experience for the Presidency? Personally, I would rather have someone run for President who knows "the game" inside and out - and that only comes with experience.

Term limits is needed. If a Senator can't learn the game in 6 years, he has no business being a Senator. A Representative should have 3 two year terms. Six years is a long time. The problem is how many politicians get into "the groove" and they know the ropes on how to do x,y and z. We see it each election cycle. I'm not talking politicians making advances on women or men by those like Rangel that are involved in lots of corruption.

If we can't have limits on congress, why have term limits on presidents?

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well, the President himself does not hold that much knowledge and experience himself anyways. He has tons of advisors and he relies more on them when it's time to make a decision than he does on his own knowledge.

Many presidents were politicians before taking office, so that's not true. Advisers are why they're called advisers.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well, the President himself does not hold that much knowledge and experience himself anyways. He has tons of advisors and he relies more on them when it's time to make a decision than he does on his own knowledge.

Many presidents were politicians before taking office, so that's not true. Advisers are why they're called advisers.

Yeah, but just because you're a politician doesn't mean you're a pro at economics, foreign affairs, etc. which is why they have to rely on their advisors.

BubbleBliss wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well, the President himself does not hold that much knowledge and experience himself anyways. He has tons of advisors and he relies more on them when it's time to make a decision than he does on his own knowledge.

Many presidents were politicians before taking office, so that's not true. Advisers are why they're called advisers.

Yeah, but just because you're a politician doesn't mean you're a pro at economics, foreign affairs, etc. which is why they have to rely on their advisors.

That should be obvious. That's why one has an economic advisor. But to say that a president doesn't "hold that much knowledge and experience" isn't a fair statement to make.

Well, comparatively they don't. If you think about all the decisions a President has to make in all different fields, there's really nothing much they can learn about it in previous political jobs. Economics, foreign affairs, military, cultural, scientific, etc. on most of these things the President relies heavily on advisors. And economic and military decisions are probably the most important decisions a President has to make.

You said that they don't "hold that much knowledge and experience."

I'm trying to wrap my head around that. If a president was a former Senator, Representative or better yet, a governor, they actually do have have "knowledge" and "experience." I'd rather vote for a person who was a governor than any of the others. That's an executive job just like being a president.

Go ahead, parse the words again.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I meant that even if a Senator is in office for 40 years, he won't learn much more about foreign policy, economics, etc. in those years than he would in 6 years. That's why I support term limits. I was answering ILM's post about how the longer somebody is in politics the more knowledge he gains. I think that if you're in office 3 years of 40 year, you'll always rely on your advisors in a lot of fields that you simply don't come into contact with in other political careers.

Fair enuff

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:I'm not against term limits. But I'm definitely not for them either. Of course, I can see what Tex says, about how the longer they stay in, the more "corrupt" they "can" become. I do buy that to an extent... But I don't think it has to be like that. I'd like to think that some people (at least at one point in the past, no doubt) that some actually got into politics because they wanted to do good. So given that, I also think that experience is quite important. Hence, why I'm definitely not for term limits. I mean, one can only learn so much of "the game" (of politics) in one or two terms. And what if that person decides to go to higher office? Is one or terms in congress enough experience for the Presidency? Personally, I would rather have someone run for President who knows "the game" inside and out - and that only comes with experience.

Term limits is needed. If a Senator can't learn the game in 6 years, he has no business being a Senator. A Representative should have 3 two year terms. Six years is a long time. The problem is how many politicians get into "the groove" and they know the ropes on how to do x,y and z. We see it each election cycle. I'm not talking politicians making advances on women or men by those like Rangel that are involved in lots of corruption.

If we can't have limits on congress, why have term limits on presidents?

My ultimate point is that I would much rather have someone who is over-qualified than someone who is under-qualified. Of course, there are risks. But IMO, the risks of being "politically stupid" out-weigh the risks of being "politically corrupt". Corruption can still get things done. Stupidity can't.

The bottom line - it's a choice between evils.

Excuse my ignorance, but I don't really understand where the idea that non-fixed terms cause corruption comes from? With regards to the British system (I'm looking at you, Matthew ) I don't see how having fixed terms for MPs would solve problems. A party can be riddled with corruption regardless of the time individual members might spend in government. And then there's the civil service...do you propose fixed terms for those individuals too? (Lets be honest, the civil service runs Britain,not the politicians. Or haven't you watched Yes, Minister recently?

I'm genuinely not sure that politics could even function without some level of corruption.

i_luv_miley wrote:My ultimate point is that I would much rather have someone who is over-qualified than someone who is under-qualified. Of course, there are risks. But IMO, the risks of being "politically stupid" out-weigh the risks of being "politically corrupt". Corruption can still get things done. Stupidity can't.

The bottom line - it's a choice between evils.

By that line of thinking, any politician was a dumbass when they started, so they shouldn't have been in there. One always has to start somewhere. To have politicians sitting in office up there like the Pope is bad. It's half of the problem we have right now on both sides of the aisle. The most glaring example is how many of these goons serve themselves and special interest groups instead of the people they serve. We put them there to represent us. Not any more. I know it's a sticky issue and i'm not going to debate it, but the health care bill was a good example. Representatives & Senators voted for it even though in some instances their constituency was firmly against it. A few have lost their primary bids for re-election based on that. Serves them right. When i have a gov't official deciding for me what he thinks is best for me, it's time for him to go. I voted for my Democrat representative in 2008. Not this fall. He'll still probably hold onto his seat but i'm not going to help him stay there.

People bitch about the gov't they get and those very people are part of the problem by sending the same people back to DC.