Why Are Politicians Waiting for the People? They Are Supposed to Lead

Whenever people push for positive change whether it be gay rights, equal rights for women, equality of income, or even something as basic as healthcare for everyone, centrist moderates always say the same thing: the country just isn’t ready yet. But politicians aren’t supposed to wait for the people to be ready for positive change. They are supposed to lead. That means making the case for the better world that is possible and pushing until it is achieved.

9 thoughts on “Why Are Politicians Waiting for the People? They Are Supposed to Lead

  1. But Ted, who wants to rock a profitable boat ? Those «centrist moderates» remain in their relatively well-paid positions (174000 USD per annum + perks + «campaign contributions»). When they leave – whether of their own free will or at the behest of the electorate – after not rocking the boat, they are guaranteed still more remunerative positions as lobbyists, etc, etc. What’s not to like ? Trains to Auschwitz/Oświęcim – and elsewhere – will continue to roll….


    • The system lashes out against anyone that rocks the boat, outside of a few left leaning oldsters (that frequently vote the right way on key issues) that are tolerated to give the appearance of a functional republic.
      Dripping progress into office at the state and national level wouldn’t change much. The progressives that got elected would just end up replacing the progressives hounded out of office or attacked by nuts fueled by far right media hate.

      To change congress or a state house, a large wave of real progressives would have to come in all at once. Then they could start passing laws to ban large donations, ban massive PACs ect. Then they must enforce the reforms: bring in inspectors that will be constantly poking around for corruption, jail corrupt congress members and corporate officers that break the rules.

      Then comes the court fights: sometimes it will come down to passing a new constitutional amendment to go around the Supremes or waiting long enough for one or two right wing members to retire. Then a left a leaning president needs to nominate a progressive to fill every vacancies. Finally a left of center Senate must approve the nomination.

      In my opinion change can only come with a depression and or a draft to fuel a endless war sparking massive outrage that must answered. Then of course those would profit if deregulated marketplace will try chipping away the reforms

      • Hi Henri,

        Good question, glad you asked!
        1) further destroy domestic economy so that the military becomes one of the few remaining job opportunities available to young people,
        2) hire troops of private military suppliers,
        3) hire terrorists against whom you had been fighting “the clash of civilizations” by simply referring to them now as “moderate rebels.”

      • Glad to see, falco, that you’ve provided a guide to solving the economic difficulties in which large numbers of residents of the US now find themselves (aside from that caused by the (nota bene «bipartison») war on China’s economic and technological progress). Alas, no Prize to Alfred Nobel’s memory to you, as this is the sort of thing the US has been doing, to greater or lesser degree, ever since the end of WW II…. 😉


  2. Politicians are too busy being led by corporate big bucks to do any leading of anyone. They can’t help anyone do anything when they can’t even help themselves.

    Trump explained that directly to other Republican candidates in 2016 when he said on the debate stage that he donated money to most of his competitors, and that they would all answer his calls.

    Not one of the Republican primary candidates dared utter one word of refutation to Trump’s claim.

    Democrats pled and won in court on the defense that their primary elections are in effect non-binding referendums so that they could not be found liable for receiving campaign donations made to the Sanders 2016 campaign fraudulently while actively blocking him.

    These politicians who are led by the market themselves are ill equipped to do anything but abandon their electorate to fend for themselves in the market.

    Don’t count on elections to change anything.

    If elections could change anything they would soon be made illegal by legislators beholden to their corporate masters.

  3. Glenn covered most of what I was going to say.
    I think we all need to revisit what we mean by “politician” and what we mean by “leader.” And possibly also what we mean by “follower.”
    Trump donated to his competitors, and they take his calls. And, again, Trump–whom I do not like–is telling us the truth (at least on that): if you have enough money, and are willing to part with a pissant nothing rounding error of it, you, too, can have any and all of the politicians and the rest of that portion of the power structure hanging on your every word and laughing at your every quip and doing everything you tell them to (more or less).
    I wonder why the 99% simply hasn’t put together a small committee (maybe 11 people), gotten a GoFundMe page for, say, $30 a person–$3 a month for a year, which includes processing and fees. That $9 billion is enough to buy every politician in the U.S., all the way down to the city council level. Get rid of NAFTA, raise the minimum wage, universal single-payer healthcare, guaranteed jobs, free education, all that jazz. We could have it in place before Arbor Day.

  4. Democrats do lead their electorate in the proper display of submission to Republican outrages.

    Like the denial of the right to a Democratic Party choice of a Supreme Court justice.

    Silent mourning is the appropriate Democrat Party’s response to Republican outrages, while Brooks Brother’s Riots are appropriate Republican responses to polite Democratic Party requests for justice.

    It’s so hard for Democrats to act as if they are outraged at Republican outrages when they really are not bothered by them at all.

Leave a Reply