Airliners.net

Hey guys,
Across the generations, politics has run through my family, on both sides, at various levels.
I've always had an interest in politics but never been actively engaged.
I am finding myself increasingly drawn however into it, as I get more and more passionate about social injustices and just plain stupid decisions that politicians seem to be making.
A few people have started encouraging me to get more involved, but I don't 'fit' into any of the major parties here in Australia and frankly, I am not a person who likes the limelight.
So what do you all think? With the way the world is spinning these days, would any of you enter politics? Are the negatives outweighed by the noble principles of democracy and trying to make a difference (positive, I hope lol)?
Also, is anyone in our a.net community a politician? Any advice would be welcome!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

Interesting. I feel with you, thought about it as well and very interested in politics all my life.
Don't know how old you are. And I don't know about the political climate in Australia. And I don't know at which level you want to participate? City, State, National? I guess you guys als have the district system to work with?
But in general: You sound left of the middle, am I right? There is a saying, leftish politicians are in general quite frustrated because they want to change society, conservative or right want to keep things as they are, so they have it far easier. Idealistic people whom go into politics to really change things, mostly don't succeed. Politics is all about wheeling and dealing, because you need a majority to get things done and there are a lot of opposing forces in play here, so change will happen over time. So if that is your main thing, you might be better of with a NGO lobbying for the cause you are really interested in, especially when you say you don't want to be too much in the light. A backbencher sometimes does a great job, but if you are thinking about the national level, you need to win the district again and in order to do that, you need to be in the press and get the exposure, especially in your district. In The Netherlands it is far easier in that respect, you need to be on the election-list, but don't necessary need to be in the media spotlight, a bit more room for specialist, but still media attention is very important.

So I thing it all depends on what you want and expect to achieve

Hope this helps.

Whilst in university I was elected to student council and was active in politics. I was also a member of a political party. I would be right if centre (aka pinko commi in the US).

I lost interest in it as all it was is a talking shop, with nothing happening. It is interesting to see those who were in council with me now in government, and doing as little now as they were then.

I now wouldn't vote for the party I was a member of, nor would I ever seek elected office.

BestWestern wrote:

I would be right if centre (aka pinko commi in the US).

Read the Wikipedia page on "Pinko." Pinko Commies were definitely left-of-center in the USA.

I prefer to do good for my community by staying on as a public servant. I work for my local municipality, and while the pay is sub-par, I am proud of the work I do and the services I provide for the members of my community.

BobPatterson wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

I would be right if centre (aka pinko commi in the US).

Read the Wikipedia page on "Pinko." Pinko Commies were definitely left-of-center in the USA.

Yes, but what is considered "center" in the US is considered far, far right in almost any other country.

The only famous, profiled american politician which could be considered ever so slightly left of center
Is Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton would be considered a moderate right politician most places.

M564038 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

I would be right if centre (aka pinko commi in the US).

Read the Wikipedia page on "Pinko." Pinko Commies were definitely left-of-center in the USA.

Yes, but what is considered "center" in the US is considered far, far right in almost any other country.

The only famous, profiled american politician which could be considered ever so slightly left of center
Is Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton would be considered a moderate right politician most places.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that.

Bernie Sanders is a flaming socialist.

But I do understand that these "far-this" and "extreme-that" terms have different meanings in different parts of the world.

BobPatterson wrote:

M564038 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Read the Wikipedia page on "Pinko." Pinko Commies were definitely left-of-center in the USA.

Yes, but what is considered "center" in the US is considered far, far right in almost any other country.

The only famous, profiled american politician which could be considered ever so slightly left of center
Is Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton would be considered a moderate right politician most places.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that.

Bernie Sanders is a flaming socialist.

But I do understand that these "far-this" and "extreme-that" terms have different meanings in different parts of the world.

According to the perception of the word in your part of the world, yes, other places, that wouldn't fly at all. Half of the political spectrum would be to the left of him.

In the US, universal health care is considered a left wing thing. In the rest of the world it simply isn't.
It's completely broadband in the political spectrum, with the possible exeption of some extreme right wing parties.

One quick example before bed time, but that list is long, and it is not really that interesting which words you put to it. (Except misusing the word socialist could be viewed as intellectually inacurate.)
I find it interresting that the whole american political spectrum is so far shifted to the right, that words like left or right completely lose their meaning in translation.

M564038 wrote:

In the US, universal health care is considered a left wing thing. In the rest of the world it simply isn't.
It's completely broadband in the political spectrum, with the possible exception of some extreme right wing parties.

Nonsense. Perhaps we would disagree as to what constitutes universal health care. Most Americans support the idea of everyone having health insurance. A Republican governor saw to that in Massachusetts. Supported by Democrats. Even President Trump thinks universal health insurance is appropriate.

However, many Americans do not believe that the current provisions of the Affordable Care Act is the best way to achieve it.

By the way, I think that many more Canadians (who have universal health care) come to the United States for medical treatments, than is the case of Americans traveling to Canada for health care.

The devil is in the details.

M564038 wrote:

I find it interesting that the whole American political spectrum is so far shifted to the right, that words like left or right completely lose their meaning in translation.

It boggles the mind to think that anyone can actually believe that.

No.

I was elected as one of 18 members to a county legislative board last year. As my first elective office, let me start by saying that my experience has been somewhat limited. If you decide to run for office and win, allow me to offer some insight to my own experience and to share some advice I received from other elected officials:
1 - Listen to your people. They put you in office to represent them and you should listen to their concerns
2 - Don't take it personal. There will be disagreements, but keep them about the issues, not the personalities
3 - Remember it is only a temporary job. You were elected and you can be defeated.
4 - Things move slowly. As the new guy, I'm having a hard time figuring this out.
5 - Don't be afraid to speak up. You may get shot down, but again, don't take it personally.
6 - You will have to make some unpopular decisions. Be prepared for the fallout
7 - Take time to learn your job and utilize any and all resources that help you do a better job.
8 - You can't please everyone. Make your decisions on what is best for everyone, not just a select few.
Far too many good people stay away from elected office because of the toxic nature of politics and government. Don't be one of them if you sincerely believe that you can contribute to your community. As for me, I'm still learning. I serve with others who have been on the board for years. They will tell you that they are still learning. But, we all want what is best for the people we serve. Hopefully, you will see fit to serve. If you do decide to run, best of luck to you!

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
Across the generations, politics has run through my family, on both sides, at various levels.
I've always had an interest in politics but never been actively engaged.
I am finding myself increasingly drawn however into it, as I get more and more passionate about social injustices and just plain stupid decisions that politicians seem to be making.
A few people have started encouraging me to get more involved, but I don't 'fit' into any of the major parties here in Australia and frankly, I am not a person who likes the limelight.
So what do you all think? With the way the world is spinning these days, would any of you enter politics? Are the negatives outweighed by the noble principles of democracy and trying to make a difference (positive, I hope lol)?
Also, is anyone in our a.net community a politician? Any advice would be welcome!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

Never. Don't do it. You'll have to betray everything you believe in and stand for.

Just don't do it. Don't ask me anything more, that's just the way things are.

BobPatterson wrote:

M564038 wrote:

In the US, universal health care is considered a left wing thing. In the rest of the world it simply isn't.
It's completely broadband in the political spectrum, with the possible exception of some extreme right wing parties.

Nonsense. Perhaps we would disagree as to what constitutes universal health care. Most Americans support the idea of everyone having health insurance. A Republican governor saw to that in Massachusetts. Supported by Democrats. Even President Trump thinks universal health insurance is appropriate.

However, many Americans do not believe that the current provisions of the Affordable Care Act is the best way to achieve it.

By the way, I think that many more Canadians (who have universal health care) come to the United States for medical treatments, than is the case of Americans traveling to Canada for health care.

The devil is in the details.

M564038 wrote:

I find it interesting that the whole American political spectrum is so far shifted to the right, that words like left or right completely lose their meaning in translation.

It boggles the mind to think that anyone can actually believe that.

Thats the difference, whilst most Americans support the idea of everyone having health insurance, other Countries support the idea of free health care inclusive of drugs, without having to make any inusrance commitment.

As to being astounded that anyone can believe that the entire US political spectrum is shifted far to the right, as a result of my visits to the US and my wife having close relatives living there, I'm astounded that any US citizen who has spent more than a short while abroad could be in denial over the matter.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

As to being astounded that anyone can believe that the entire US political spectrum is shifted far to the right, as a result of my visits to the US and my wife having close relatives living there, I'm astounded that any US citizen who has spent more than a short while abroad could be in denial over the matter.

Agreed.
From my German perspective I wouldn't consider the positions of Sanders particularly left-leaning.

BobPatterson wrote:

[Bernie Sanders is a flaming socialist.

Angela Merkel will be glad to hear you consider her a flaming socialist, especially considering she is in a party so right wing, that the vast majority of Germans consider the furthest to the right they even consider voting for.

fortytwoeyes wrote:

Bongodog1964 wrote:

As to being astounded that anyone can believe that the entire US political spectrum is shifted far to the right, as a result of my visits to the US and my wife having close relatives living there, I'm astounded that any US citizen who has spent more than a short while abroad could be in denial over the matter.

Agreed.
From my German perspective I wouldn't consider the positions of Sanders particularly left-leaning.

Exactly, if he joined the CDU he would be considered progressive, but not really stand out.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

[Bernie Sanders is a flaming socialist.

Angela Merkel will be glad to hear you consider her a flaming socialist, especially considering she is in a party so right wing, that the vast majority of Germans consider the furthest to the right they even consider voting for.

I made no comment or judgement with respect to Chancellor Merkel. Please do not impute to me things that I have never expressed.

It is surely possible that, while Senator Sanders might be considered, by Americans, a flaming liberal, he might in Europe, be considered by Europeans, quite differently.

Perhaps you missed my earlier statement that political terms mean different things in different places.

To the original poster who asked "Is it worth going into politics?" I suggest that it is vital that you do if you have an open mind, hold values that you think important, look kindly upon your fellow citizens, and have a thick skin.

Try to remember that "all politics are local" and that harping critics from distant lands are just minor irritants. The views of your constituents are what matter although there may be times when you might have to act in opposition to what they (or some of them) think are their best interests. Be prepared to take some heat.

BobPatterson wrote:

It is surely possible that, while Senator Sanders might be considered, by Americans, a flaming liberal, he might in Europe, be considered by Europeans, quite differently..

There is context to the discussion. Just because US politics is right to far right compared to most of the rest of the world doesn´t mean you can not differentiate left and right in the US anymore. So he is left. It does however preclude Sanders being a flaming socialist, since he is that by no definition that doesn´t stem from the very far right, right among holocaust deniers and other despicables. He is a social democrat, and among those, there are plenty of social democrats to compare him with, a fairly right wing social democrat.
Unless you put it forward with a full definition of what exactly you mean by "flaming socialist", since he is one in no commonly accepted sense, even in the US, your statement is simply wrong. You can use words with any meaning you like, but only if you a) use a commonly accepted definition or b) give the definition you are using. If you can come up with a definition that makes him a flaming socialist, you end up with the problem of what real socialist are, plasma-burner socialist? Since Sanders is center in the great scheme of things, you´d be lumping about half the total political spectrum under one headline, which is ridiculous right from the start. He does neither propose democratic control over means of production, nor common ownership of them. Therefore he is not a Socialist.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

It is surely possible that, while Senator Sanders might be considered, by Americans, a flaming liberal, he might in Europe, be considered by Europeans, quite differently..

There is context to the discussion. Just because US politics is right to far right compared to most of the rest of the world doesn´t mean you can not differentiate left and right in the US anymore. So he is left. It does however preclude Sanders being a flaming socialist, since he is that by no definition that doesn´t stem from the very far right, right among holocaust deniers and other despicables. He is a social democrat, and among those, there are plenty of social democrats to compare him with, a fairly right wing social democrat.
Unless you put it forward with a full definition of what exactly you mean by "flaming socialist", since he is one in no commonly accepted sense, even in the US, your statement is simply wrong. You can use words with any meaning you like, but only if you a) use a commonly accepted definition or b) give the definition you are using. If you can come up with a definition that makes him a flaming socialist, you end up with the problem of what real socialist are, plasma-burner socialist? Since Sanders is center in the great scheme of things, you´d be lumping about half the total political spectrum under one headline, which is ridiculous right from the start. He does neither propose democratic control over means of production, nor common ownership of them. Therefore he is not a Socialist.

best regards
Thomas

A flaming socialist is merely a socialist with intense or passionate views. Senator Sanders qualifies.

From National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... williamson

Your "center in the great scheme of things" is nonsense.

Happy Easter

BobPatterson wrote:

A flaming socialist is merely a socialist with intense or passionate views. Senator Sanders qualifies.

From National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... williamson

Your "center in the great scheme of things" is nonsense.

Happy Easter

Senator Sanders has, IMO, a lot of programs that are considered to the left of center in the US, but are very normal in more civilized countries. I personally support the concept of free (or very low costs) for educations after high school, be it in a state university or technical program. I also believe in universal health care (paid for like Medicare) with private insurance right along side. I don't believe that is " socialist" - to me it is just intelligent.

In terms of serving politically, Australia is a far more civilized place than the US. Might be hard to believe when you see the local politicians going after each other, but the results are far more civilized. Health care programs supported by beach party are far superior than  what we see in the US - especially with our P resident and Speaker of the House happy to throw 24 million Americans off of health insurance.

My bet is that you would be more successful in the Labour party and wish you well. Just study a lot on what has been successful and what has been a failure Also become more understanding of the world and issues that continually have to be addressed. Good luck !

I was into politics as a kid. I was elected to my city's kid's municipal council when I was in junior high school. My best friend was also elected. We had platforms, meetings, a budget, it was a great experience. We got nothing done... 20 years later the issues I was campaigning on are still not resolved.

After a long hiatus I got interested in (national) politics about 10 years ago, I follow it thoroughly, but I think I would only be interested in being a lawmaker, and to get there is usually a long and tedious road I'm not ready to take. Traditional parties in France are disintegrating, so if I had been a member of one, it would have been for nothing. New formations are being created and there are opportunities there, but I would have had to take a leave from work to really participate. My company encourages that actually, keeping my work seat warm, but I couldn't afford it.

My young sister has joined one of the parties that are disintegrating, we'll see what she does. She got into it through friends who are political students, she was even invited to a private visit of the Elysée palace.

My best friend mentioned earlier isn't into politics but he's a top civil servant, he was a special counsellor to Emmanuel Macron when he was minister of the Economy, in three weeks Macron could be the new French president, maybe there will be opportunities for him.

Ken777 wrote:

Senator Sanders has, IMO, a lot of programs that are considered to the left of center in the US, but are very normal in more civilized countries. I personally support the concept of free (or very low costs) for educations after high school, be it in a state university or technical program. I also believe in universal health care (paid for like Medicare) with private insurance right along side. I don't believe that is " socialist" - to me it is just intelligent.

In terms of serving politically, Australia is a far more civilized place than the US. Might be hard to believe when you see the local politicians going after each other, but the results are far more civilized. Health care programs supported by beach party are far superior than  what we see in the US - especially with our P resident and Speaker of the House happy to throw 24 million Americans off of health insurance.

My bet is that you would be more successful in the Labour party and wish you well. Just study a lot on what has been successful and what has been a failure Also become more understanding of the world and issues that continually have to be addressed. Good luck !

I support both universal health care and universal higher education. However, my concept of "universal" is health care for everyone, while for (free) higher education it is for those who qualify by grades earned in high school (and for a somewhat limited range of career fields). And yes, I'd include technical programs that don't require a four-year degree.

I'd also scale back a lot of our military spending and direct much of it to rebuilding infrastructure and protecting the environment.

So, I'm no fan of our current President, Speaker of the House, or Senate Majority Leader.

But I do favor economical government and I'd get rid of thousands of advisory committees, mandatory reports that no one pays attention to, and programs that don't accomplish what they were supposed to and never are subjected to sunset provisions.