Is it inaccurate to think that most politicians have the same interests and voting is simply picking the person you think will do less damage?

No, I think in a lot of cases there are some large differences of opinion.

What is frustrating, and blurs the line, is that the behavior of politicians seems to remain consistent despite the affiliation. Dems take money from unions, Reps take money from the Chamber of Commerce. Both sides of the aisle have to continually seek money for re-election.

So it is necessary to vote for the policy you prefer. But don’t be surprised that they seek out special interests to get their next campaign funded.

Politicians are very out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent & with corporations literally being in the position to buy our elections…...... voting seems to have less & less importance. However, it is all that we have to try to exercise some control over our government.

Start with the idea that all politicians are whores. They may begin their careers with idealism and fire in the belly, but they all sell themselves out to the monied interests – left and right – in order to be re-elected.

Any person who gives serious money to a politician expects something in return. THere are precious few altruists in this day and age. So by definition, the politician has sold himself to the people who provide the cash.

So with that as the backdrop, all politicians are alike. The degree to which they show independent thought varies, a little, based on ego and upbringing (and independent wealth), but in the end, they are all sell-outs.

So to answer your question, the difference between least bad and really bad is not that far.

I can see that politicians, as a group, attract individuals who tend to be selfish and power-seeking.

You could argue the same about businesspeople.

You could argue the same about police officers.

You could argue the same about people who work in finance.

Any profession can be generalized about. Sometimes it’s important to identify structural incentives. But I find that it is rarely helpful to paint in such broad strokes. I prefer to look at individual politicians on their individual merits, rather than simply labeling them as a “politician” and pre-judging their entire worth based on that label.

And yes, voting for the lesser of two evils is more than “worth it,” that’s the entire point of voting. Democracy is about compromise.

Of course they don’t have the same interests. A Democrat has very different views and interests than a Republican when it comes to most issues: taxation, social entitlement programs, medical care, the environment, illegal aliens, you name it.

If anyone thinks the past decade would have been the same regardless of whether Al Gore or George Bush were president…well, to put it kindly, that person doesn’t follow current events very well.

@jaytkay – I partially agree and partially agree. Yes, Gore would have been a far different president, of course.

But my point was not about specific personalities, but about the principle of politicians being whores. Gore would have had to sell out in order to be reelected, just as Bush did. It would be naive of you to think that a Democrat is not subject to the same monetary issues (and influence peddling) that a Republican is.

SO while the specific characters might be done a few different things, I am comfortable in the principles that all politicians can be bought and sold.

“Selling out” is not the same as “compromising.”

@Qingu – you compromise with your adversaries. You sell out to your supporters with money.

A politician’s duty is not to just his supporters, it’s to his constituents as a whole, and—preferably—to the whole country.

And since money largely = power, what you call “selling out” can often be a form of compromise.

@Qingu – you talk of an ideal world.

Sure, a politician’s duty is to the 45% of the people in his/her district who didn’t vote for him, but in reality that is not often the case. In most cases (and particularly where I live in the Deep South), the congressmen (mostly Republican) and senators (both Republican) pay no attention to the needs and interests of liberal democrats. It is as if we didn’t exist.

The reality – as opposed the idealism you espouse – is that your congressman will NOT care what you think unless you already agree with him. And if you are (in my case) a Democrat without a means of contributing to a campaign, you are not listened to at all.

So let’s live in the real world. You are of course absolutely correct- if we were living in Dreamland.

No. It is in fact sound thinking and time tested.

Women have used the same reasoning in choosing a mate for hundreds of thousands of years.

@elbanditoroso wha? You’re the one who appears to be living in Dreamland if you think a politician can accomplish anything without significantly compromising or taking money from powerful interest groups.

I’m a Democrat too, I think it sucks that you’re stuck in the Deep South with that kind of representation, and nothing would make me happier than if Barack Obama would drop his attempts at bipartisanship, tell the Republicans to fuck off, and push through full-on liberal legislation. Except I’m not even convinced this would be pragmatic in the long run in terms of accomplishing liberal legislation, because then he could easily lose Independent voters and idiots like David Brooks. Maybe he will lose them anyway; maybe Obama is naive and truly believes in bipartisanship for its own sake (unlike Republicans) ... or maybe Democrats, because of the unique nature of our base, are more susceptible to attacks from the center. Lord knows the Occupy Wall Street crowd are not going to turn out voting in droves and push the political process to the left like the Tea Party did to the right.

I guess my point here is that pragmatism in politics is hard. Based on your reply it seems that we both want pragmatic politicians with liberal ideals. But it’s especially hard to be a pragmatic Democrat when liberals label compromises or taking corporate money as “selling out.” Obviously some Democrats are just corrupt, like the ones who leave office to take lucrative jobs with the industries they were paid to promote during their terms.

Yeah, I think voting is about the lesser of two evils. I’m starting to think Carlin was on to something with the non-voting thing.

Some politicians are people of integrity but as they are so dependent on the support of business and special interest groups they will turn into puppets worked by strings.

I think that’s a trap those trying to corrupt the political process for their own profit constantly set for gullible vooters. There are VERY substantial differences today between the two parties and their agendas.

It would be naive of you to think that a Democrat is not subject to the same monetary issues (and influence peddling) that a Republican is

The fact the political campaigns require huge amounts of money is not news. You don’t have a big news scoop there.

But extrapolating that into “all politicians are the same!!” is like saying “jaytkay is a singer like Avril Lavigne because they both use their vocal chords!!”

@jaytkay I doubt anyone would ever demean you by comparing your vocal chords to Avril Lavigne, we all know you can sing better.