Dyed All Hues

Thinker and Experimenter,

This conversation is closed.

What is politics without slander, smokes and mirrors, and/or spin?

I have prompted this inquiry on the basis that elections for the next president is around the corner in the United States.

Whenever there is some type of a legislative election, whether in a student body to a nation wide election, there is always some type of slander looming somewhere around every candidate.

It really bothers me how all these pass as qualities a leader must uphold in order to create positive change. There hasn't been any leaders running for a position of importance that has not used some type of a smear campaign or making promises they do not follow.

I would much rather root for a candidate that is honest and can identify their own faults. A leader who can see their own faults is a leader worth supporting. Many candidates I have observed in governmental positions act as though they are perfect and have no faults. Have you ever met a "perfect" person?

I believe everyone is entitled to make errors, but observe their improvements from their points of error.

Could any election for a position of power survive without using any of these smokes and mirrors to spin information in order to create slander for their opponents?

Please leave any Ted talks in your comment, if there are any about this topic.

  • May 29 2012: Q1-"What is politics without slander, smokes and mirrors, and/or spin?"

    A1-To answer your topic question, I would say that the result would open and honest discourse. Open and honest discourse does not mean that people will settle on a single answer. For as many people, there are likely to be as many different opinions on a course of action.

    Q2-"Could any election for a position of power survive without using any of these smokes and mirrors to spin information in order to create slander for their opponents?"
    A2- What do you do when, being in the minority, you believe that the actions taken by the majority are immoral, unethical, destined to lead to the downfall of all, or just plain wrong? This could lead people who once practiced honest discourse to engage in actions, not considered honest discourse. Is that good or bad? As an analogy, one person's patriot is another person's terrorist. I don't think you can separate politics from smoke and mirrors or spin, even if everyone is trying to act like a good person. (I'm not even discussing a person's desire for wealth and personal power, which is clearly a factor).
    • thumb
      May 30 2012: Thank you Thomas,

      You opened my paradigm to a larger radius of thought now. =)

      I will consider your response for future reference.
  • thumb
    May 25 2012: In most cases, politicians are not as committed to the welfare of the people as they usually claim to be. It would seem as if political meetings have little or nothing to do with real human emotions. Unfortunately, even the selfishness and pretense are expressions of real human emotions.
    Ideas may be well concieved, yet they usually fail because of human failings.

    We should puncture the myth of a benevolent ruling class, be they in the military or in the secondary schools.
    This is not an invitation to a form of anarchy; but one to a form of tension perpetually maintained between protest and acceptance. A certain rejection without refusal.
    These are not meant to be codified into a political theory; all that are meant to be made into a way of living, that would constantly create awareness.

    Because we are all human, and have the power of choices,and are not totally free from selfishness; there will always be slander, smokes, mirrors and/or spin in our politics.
    People should not be trusted only because they asked to be trusted. Trust is to be earned when the consistency of the words and actions of humans have been tested.
  • thumb
    May 31 2012: What is politics without slander, smokes and mirrors, and/or spin?
    Answer: it is better and more productive, perhaps?
    • thumb
      Jun 1 2012: Hi Debra,

      Thanks for the response to the first question I propose.

      For my second question:

      Could any election for a position of power survive without using any of these smokes and mirrors to spin information in order to create slander for their opponents?

      Any thoughts on this question?
      • thumb
        Jun 1 2012: Hi Derek!
        I can imagine that we could move incrementally toward less of that especially if we make our own relationships with politicians between elections. give them credit when they are responsible and help the ones you believe in to win (you may have acess to some helpful info that they might not).
        One thing is for sure- if we capitulate nothing changes but if we hold on to OUR collective best intererests we do not abandon the field midgame. None of us can imagine doing this in any other sport so why do we roll over and play dead in one of the most crucial areas of our collective lives?
        Cheers!
        Debra
  • May 31 2012: A far, distant, impossible, fictional dream. At least from the two corrupted, grown past their welcome political parties we currently have in the U.S.
  • May 28 2012: Naked.
    Naked greed, dishonesty, misleading, corrupt and most apparent, IRRELEVANT.

    Humans do not need politicians or politics as they are, and as they have been for far too long.

    They do not solve our human problems so they are irrelevant. They do not intend on solving our human problems because they profit from our problems. They are irrelevant and not needed.
    • thumb
      May 29 2012: Is there a system that replaces politicians or politics that wouldn't turn out to be politics, which is in place to organize and restrict certain actions that people can make? Do you believe that everyone is honest all the time? Would crime cease if politics weren't involved?
  • thumb
    May 27 2012: Dictatorship. Slander, smoke, mirrors, and spin would invoke a death sentence. Definately a winner take all situation. Gives the term loser a real meaning. Bob.
    • thumb
      May 28 2012: I'm not sure this is a clear response to my topic above. Could you elaborate, please?
  • thumb
    May 25 2012: In most cases, politicians are not as committed to the welfare of the people as they usually claim to be. It would seem as if political meetings have little or nothing to do with real human emotions. Unfortunately, even the selfishness and pretense are expressions of real human emotions.
    Ideas may be well concieved, yet they usually fail because of human failings.

    We should puncture the myth of a benevolent ruling class, be they in the military or in the secondary schools.
    This is not an invitation to a form of anarchy; but one to a form of tension perpetually maintained between protest and acceptance. A certain rejection without refusal.
    These are not meant to be codified into a political theory; all that are meant to be made into a way of living, that would constantly create awareness.

    Because we are all human, and have the power of choices,and are not totally free from selfishness; there will always be slander, smokes, mirrors and/or spin in our politics.