Do people who defend status quo politicians by claiming they are more 'experienced' insinuating they lack character?

Experience' at screwing the public hardly seems like something to boast about for somebody campaigning so it's a last resort claim for someone with no leg to stand on who would otherwise say something of conviction to impress their constituency. Asked by Lychnobite 14 months ago Similar questions: people defend status quo politicians claiming experienced insinuating lack character Politics & Law > Politics.

Similar questions: people defend status quo politicians claiming experienced insinuating lack character.

I'm not so sure that's true in every case. Not every politician is corrupt; and sometimes what we might interpret as "corruption" or an attempt to screw the public is normal procedure but might not be what we PERSONALLY want them to do. There needs to be a balance--experience combined with a fresh outlook.

I like knowing the person who is making major decisions for me has experience; that's what helps them make those big decisions. It's like--who would you prefer to operate on you--a surgeon with a few years under his belt or a rookie? Experience definitely has a value; but if the person has been corrupted by their power, they are no longer doing a good job and need to be replaced.

When the public gets shafted it might not be the intention but it's certainly a side-effect of politicians, particularly the 'experienced' variety, maneuvering their way around D.C. climbing the political ladder. Ordinary citizens have been imprisoned for less when there was no shred of criminal intent even. What i'm finding hard to believe that people can be naive enough to believe the empty promises, or that they have a sinister intention and wish to work against more constructive ends by electing people who clearly lust for power of their own political advantage.

I don't believe politics must be as complex or life threatening as the trade of a surgeon but lawyers who do dominate the field have certainly made it appear to be that way. Lychnobite 14 months ago .

I think the current mood developing is that this "experience" is exactly what has savaged our government.

Well, you go with what you have. The older, more experienced "statesmen" know how to make deals to bring big federally funded projects to their states, and they market themselves that way. New legislators might not be able to do this, but then again, newbies don't have decades of favors that they owe to other legislators.It can be a fresh start to have someone new in office.

The older, more experienced "statesmen" know how to make deals to bring big federally funded projects to their states >>or they know how to make their district more dependent upon the national government. If people knew how to think past first base they'd realize the hole they're digging themselves into and make wiser decisions about what government should do for them. Lychnobite 14 months ago .

Well, I agree with that. I live in Massachusetts. The Big Dig cost $16 billion and took about 15 years to finish.

And all it did was add 1 extra lane in either direction and take away a lot of exits into the city, so traffic is still tied up in knots. This massive project didn't do us any favors, but a lot of contractors got rich off of it. (One plumber made $300,000 a year from it!).

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.