NationStates Jolt Archive

Politics: A Profession?

A lot of what we’re seeing in the news lately is politicians voting to raise their own salaries to even higher numbers. The people, obviously funding these “raises” with their tax money, vote against it, and yet the politicians complain that their wages are old-fashioned, and not adjusted for inflation and modern times. Which side is right? What’s the solution? To cut to the chase, the politicians are dead wrong.

One of the major problems with today’s politicians is that they see their elected position as a career. One must wonder why this is the case. Ancient representatives did not share this belief. Ancient politicians of Greece and Rome saw politics as a calling. They were statesmen, they had other jobs while serving, and they saw the political arena as their duty to their nation, and the people they represented.

Today’s Congressmen and Senators stand in stark contrast. They beg for money that many careers can never hope to make, and yet they work less than half of the year on occasion. They spend most of their terms catering to special interests to insure their re-election, or they simply begin running for their next term before their current term even reaches its halfway point. How effective can they truly be? How deserving of the money really are they? On top of that, with the exorbitant cost of campaigns these days, none of these representatives need the money. They all have old family money, or are lawyers or other professionals.

Finally, people across the nation are beginning to stand up, voting down pay increases and voting out Congressmen and Senators. However, until being a representative is no longer a job, it will continue to be treated as such, with the same money-making goals and general apathy of any other career.

Should politics be a career? Should some (like the Presidency) be careers while others simply be callings? What do you think?

I totally and completely agree with you. Our MP's in the UK are already being paid enough money, but have recently been compaining that they don't get paid as much as Doctors, Lawyers and "other professionals", demanding around £100,000. This is on top of paying for their housing in London and their exhorbitant expense accounts. Last time I checked, electoral office is not a profession.

Representatives are paid only in order to subsidise themselves whilst they are otherwise unemployed. Their pay shouldn't be treated as a salary for a job, but rather a publicly-granted subsidy.

In some ways, it shouldn't be a profession, but, we need people with leadership skills who can help run a nation, and we need people versed in the art of political matters to run the nation.

But, they are paid to much in some cases, but, they should still be paid enough that it attracts the right people; not too much, not too little.

Add the fact that Congressmen get a lifetime pension of about $10,000 a month if they have ever served, period. Also, the US congress has the worst recorded criminal record in history, (there was some e-mail going around about it), and most of these people have an 80%-90% retention rate.


American Popularism in a nutshell: You can make crooked deals, take millions in bribes, and even outright lie and blackmail, but as long as you have good enough hair and a good enough staff, you will be in your position until the day you die.

career politicians contitute a great deal that is wrong with the modern parliamentary style of government. as you say, the fact that it can be made into a career destroys any focus on good government instead encouraging pandering to the people who can pay for the next election campaign. i don't think it would be possible to have some positions as career positions and others not because then how would one get there? if all politicians were limited to two or 3 terms in which to serve it would get rid of the money makers and mean that policies would be voted through quicker. it would also mean that politicians would have less time in which to let the power corrupt them.

Ancient politicians of Greece and Rome saw politics as a calling. They were statesmen, they had other jobs while serving, and they saw the political arena as their duty to their nation, and the people they represented.

I can't speak as to Greece, but I've read more than a little about Rome, and to say you're misguided about the attitudes of Roman politicians is to be kind about it. They were as avaricious and greedy as any politician today, and had fewer institutional barriers to their use of their position to enrich themselves. The Senate of ancient Rome would make the US government look pristine and aboveboard, even during the glory days of the Republic.

Should politics be a career? Hell yes. The other option is that politicians have to be rich to get into politics. Let me tell you, I'd much rather have a politician who is mildly overpayed than rules that mean that only multi-millionaires can run for office because no one else can afford the lifestyle.

Politics (especially national politics) are a full-time job. Congresspeople's jobs include not only their responsibilities in DC, but also the process of communicating with and campaigning in their own home districts. It ends up being not too dissimilar than the hours worked by a professional.

Should politics be a career? Hell yes. The other option is that politicians have to be rich to get into politics. Let me tell you, I'd much rather have a politician who is mildly overpayed than rules that mean that only multi-millionaires can run for office because no one else can afford the lifestyle.

Politics (especially national politics) are a full-time job. Congresspeople's jobs include not only their responsibilities in DC, but also the process of communicating with and campaigning in their own home districts. It ends up being not too dissimilar than the hours worked by a professional.

Yeah. Even though I don't fully agree with him, I like the fact that someone from as broke-ass a background as Dennis Kucinich can serve as a Representative. I at least feel like he can relate to me.

Should politics be a career? Hell yes. The other option is that politicians have to be rich to get into politics. Let me tell you, I'd much rather have a politician who is mildly overpayed than rules that mean that only multi-millionaires can run for office because no one else can afford the lifestyle.

Politics (especially national politics) are a full-time job. Congresspeople's jobs include not only their responsibilities in DC, but also the process of communicating with and campaigning in their own home districts. It ends up being not too dissimilar than the hours worked by a professional.

i wouldn't suggest making politics an unpaid endeavour - even politicians deserve to live (hard as that is for me to concede) - but they certainly shouldn't be getting the kind of salaries and expense accounts that they do now. the problem is with politicians attaining long term positions which are then abused through self importance and avarice.

Politics: A Profession?

A lot of what we’re seeing in the news lately is politicians voting to raise their own salaries to even higher numbers. The people, obviously funding these “raises” with their tax money, vote against it, and yet the politicians complain that their wages are old-fashioned, and not adjusted for inflation and modern times. Which side is right? What’s the solution? To cut to the chase, the politicians are dead wrong.

One of the major problems with today’s politicians is that they see their elected position as a career. One must wonder why this is the case. Ancient representatives did not share this belief. Ancient politicians of Greece and Rome saw politics as a calling. They were statesmen, they had other jobs while serving, and they saw the political arena as their duty to their nation, and the people they represented.

Today’s Congressmen and Senators stand in stark contrast. They beg for money that many careers can never hope to make, and yet they work less than half of the year on occasion. They spend most of their terms catering to special interests to insure their re-election, or they simply begin running for their next term before their current term even reaches its halfway point. How effective can they truly be? How deserving of the money really are they? On top of that, with the exorbitant cost of campaigns these days, none of these representatives need the money. They all have old family money, or are lawyers or other professionals.

Finally, people across the nation are beginning to stand up, voting down pay increases and voting out Congressmen and Senators. However, until being a representative is no longer a job, it will continue to be treated as such, with the same money-making goals and general apathy of any other career.

Should politics be a career? Should some (like the Presidency) be careers while others simply be callings? What do you think?

Talk about being leeches.

Maybe if we had some more educated and career politicians in the US the lawyers wouldn't be both letting the criminals out of jail and screwing up the country.

Should politics be a career? Hell yes. The other option is that politicians have to be rich to get into politics. Let me tell you, I'd much rather have a politician who is mildly overpayed than rules that mean that only multi-millionaires can run for office because no one else can afford the lifestyle.

Politics (especially national politics) are a full-time job. Congresspeople's jobs include not only their responsibilities in DC, but also the process of communicating with and campaigning in their own home districts. It ends up being not too dissimilar than the hours worked by a professional.Indeed. Actually, even my father, who only worked as a politician on the county/district level (politician sounds weird here, hm, basically an official in the regional government) worked hours that far exceeded those of most other people I know.

I know that the people in state government have it a LOT worse, workload-wise (which, well, is really a no-brainer) so I wouldn't even want to imagine the average workday of somebody on the federal level.

You can pretty much kiss your family life goodbye. Why do you think the generic phrase for mentioning your wife at official events like entering office, receiving awards, or leaving office, is always (in German) "Ich danke meiner Frau, die mir in all den Jahren den Rücken frei gehalten hat", which bluntly translates to "I want to thank my wife for staying at home and raising the kids alone so I was free to do this job".

I am not a big fan of politicians in general, it's not a profession I would ever want to take even if some who take it merit admiration, but it irks me when (as is one of the favourite pastimes of our tabloids) people quote the numbers and yell "These people earn way too much, all I ever see them do is sit on their asses in parliament and look bored!"

The problem primarily is that the amount of money congress people want is ridiculous compared to the amount of effort put out, along with the corruption ratio.

Maybe if there was a way to tie their financial assets to their actual performance?

Sort of like say, making all their assets state assets to be returned adjusted for the states financial situation. So if they screw up in office, they come out broke.

The simple way to keep politicians from treating elected office as a career (and thus putting what is right for their ‘career’ ahead of doing what is right for the country) is to set term limits. In the US this could be 2 terms for a senator and I would simply state only 2 consecutive terms for representatives, with the possibility of a further 2 terms at a later date.

We could take a couple blocks of run down crappy housing just to the east of the capital and build an apartment building or two. Small one-bedroom apartments for congressmen and two-bedrooms for senators free of charge within walking distance of the capital and their offices (the difference due to congressmen only being there for 2-4 years while senators are there for 6-12). This greatly reduces the burden on newly elected officials having to find a home in DC while making it really easy to get a hold of them all on short notice.

Give them perhaps $60k on top of that as a salary and treat them like any other government employee, meaning they would only get the same exact raise they give all the other federal employees. They would get the same benefit plans as their staff – same health care, same pension contribution, same everything just like any other employee.

This will greatly reduce the power of individuals. Term limits will go a long way towards keeping the place a little less corrupt. This will lead to a much better chance for ‘new blood’ to win an election with constant turnover. The elected representatives will no longer have to spend all their time fundraising, especially not in their second term, so they should be less beholden to special interest groups. Hopefully this will also lead to a substantial reduction in the cost of running a successful campaign to begin with.

Most individuals in the modern economy do not have one job for life, so I do not see it as any great hardship that they must have a career before and after service. While there is always the prospect of a congressman doing something unethical in exchange for a job afterward, this should be a fairly easy thing to police.

If anything is, and should be, a calling, then it's politics. Do you really want your country to be run by people who are just in it for the big-ass pay cheque.

No... but term limits in and of themselves are not a good solution to this problem, because they let the politician act without accountability in her last term.

Term limits, combined with a fairly easy recall procedure, would be a good idea.

One would like to be optimistic and think that people would choose politics as a calling rather than career, but the reality of the situation dictates against that - it is a full-time job (and then some, intruding into personal time in all manner of ways).

If wages for politicians are shit or non-existent, the simple reality is that only the wealthy can afford to participate on that level of the political process.

No... but term limits in and of themselves are not a good solution to this problem, because they let the politician act without accountability in her last term.

Term limits, combined with a fairly easy recall procedure, would be a good idea.

Even better would be public financing of elections, and no option to refuse it, along with an end to gerrymandering. Everyone gets the same amount of money to run, so you reduce the incumbency advantage. It's important to remember that the 2006 elections, in which 6 Senate seats changed hands, and in which the Republicans failed to flip a single Democratic seat, were an aberration. We need to make it easier for challengers to have a real shot at winning.

In the UK, MPs get paid a fairly high salary, about 60,000 pounds; more if they are ministers.
It is necessary to pay them, so that anyone can enter politics; this kind of salary is in the right kind of range so that prospective MPs are not put off entering politics in favour of better-payed careers, but it is not well enough payed to attract those simply in it for money (especially given some MPs work quite long hours).
Apparently, however, local councillors are not payed. This causes problems, as most also have to work to earn money, and do their councillor things in the evenings and at weekends. In particular, those with families are put off, as it limits the time they can spend with their families.

Even better would be public financing of elections, and no option to refuse it, along with an end to gerrymandering. Everyone gets the same amount of money to run, so you reduce the incumbency advantage. It's important to remember that the 2006 elections, in which 6 Senate seats changed hands, and in which the Republicans failed to flip a single Democratic seat, were an aberration. We need to make it easier for challengers to have a real shot at winning.

Now, I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the most significant factor for incumbent advantage was name recognition because they get media recognition for a long time.

Now, I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the most significant factor for incumbent advantage was name recognition because they get media recognition for a long time.

That's certainly a factor, because it raises, in essence, the entry fee for a challenger. It's also a reason why, in most successful challenges to an incumbent, the challenger wins on the second try instead of the first--they've gained in the recognition race. But the incumbent generally has huge monetary advantages as well, which public financing could help alleviate. The biggest factor, though, has to be gerrymandering. In the states where gerrymandering is the least effective, where the legislature has built in requirements to make it less effective, there's more turnover in House races.

Even better would be public financing of elections, and no option to refuse it, along with an end to gerrymandering. Everyone gets the same amount of money to run, so you reduce the incumbency advantage. It's important to remember that the 2006 elections, in which 6 Senate seats changed hands, and in which the Republicans failed to flip a single Democratic seat, were an aberration. We need to make it easier for challengers to have a real shot at winning.

those 2 things, especially the end to gerrymandering, would make a great difference in making sure that our elected officials fairly represent us.

i dont suppose that the constitution will allow the total removal of outside money in campaigns but there should be a way to end gerrymandering.

the clean money/clean elections movement has made some progress in a couple of states. http://www.publicampaign.org/

Under a Clean Elections system, candidates hoping to receive public financing must collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. In return, they are paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaign, and agree not to raise money from private sources. Clean Elections candidates who are outspent by privately-funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Elections

im considering getting involved.