T Nation

Politicians are Losers

Has anyone else observed this phenomenon? The biggest failures who couldn’t receive a private sector paycheck, who never had a career, just promise people others’ money to buy votes. Most of Congress never had a career, they usually get a JD then go right into politics which again, is nothing more than making promises to buy votes. It’s not a job, not a career, takes no intelligence, as a matter of fact it’s downright pathetic.

Why are these people revered? Why do people admire these complete losers when there are so many brilliant and accomplished people?


So, are you volunteering?

Well technically it is by the most basic definition of ‘job’ which requires pay for service.

Hmmm again, there are plenty of career politicians. Not sure if you are arguing against this… as in their shouldn’t be but there are.

Third time I’m going to disagree. It may not require the kind of intelligence that is admirable to you but being a ‘successful’ politician requires a certain wit and understanding of navigating the political landscape even if its more akin to an idiot savant.

As you can tell many are not revered at all but despised. Its certainly not a position I would want, but then again I prefer to live a private life.


You forgot to include the media:

I can’t imagine why people don’t trust the media anymore.

1 Like

Yep, they are for the most part not revered at all. It appears that about 20% of people approve of the job congress is doing.

I think the ones revered are revered by partisan hacks from both sides. When I say not a real career, I mean it’s something that takes nothing beyond promising others the money from another group to buy votes. I guess lying and hypocrisy are skills.

To clarify, people act like these are accomplished and successful individuals despite the fact many are unaccomplished people by many standards.

Nah, I prefer having a real career and don’t wish to join the biggest losers in society :slight_smile:

What change do you want to see?

They have some celebrity status. People know who they are. It does take something to be successful as a politician. Maybe it’s good looks, maybe charisma, maybe building a following, maybe a combo of these and other things.

If it was easy being popular, a lot more people would do it. Maybe some of it is just something they were born with (looks in some cases).

Looks, charisma, personality, etc. It’s just really good people skills.

Many careers rely on those traits as well (think anything to do with sales, which is most everything at a certain level). Politicians do it for the good of their constituency, instead of shareholders. Same difference, mostly.

1 Like

Replace their salary with a $10 stipend for lunch, that way no career losers. Good start, but also need to replace the current voting structure with a corporate voting structure to ensure skin in the game.

Not for the good their constituency, to make outlandish promises to buy votes to keep their jobs.


Yeah, I agree with you. It isn’t something everyone can do, and something only a few people can do well. Clinton probably would have set a car sales record in his first month as a car salesman.

I do see how it appears that they are unaccomplished in many cases. They just have skills that are hard to quantify how much work went into them. Maybe some are very natural, and very little went into it, but I am guessing most worked on it.

Actually, if you really want to see that change, you should run for office. We need people who are willing to take risks to do what is right if we want that change. Yeah, the media will destroy you. Yeah, everybody will hate your guts. That’s the way it rolls.
I have no talent for politics, I would only hurt the cause. I like being left alone too much and not be the center of everybody’s attention. And there is no way, absolutely no way I would not say something that would get me tarred and feathered.

So you’d get already wealthy individuals only in politics, even more likely to vote towards their and their buddies’ pocketbooks. And poor/middle class would ever have a seat at the table.

1 Like

Curiously, would you be fine earning nothing but a $10 stipend for lunch for the next 4 years?

I wouldn’t be. And I don’t think anyone could accuse me of being a career loser.

Difference is my comp is quantitative based upon performance and AUM growth. Oh, my pay is not taken forcibly by others like tax eaters. Apples to oranges.

So retired union members collecting a pension couldn’t run? You’re not thinking this through.

Controlling money in politics is the problem. It’s extremely complicated because it takes money to run campaigns. There are a million hands out and half of them are scammers.
Perhaps a controlled system where everybody gets the same megaphone to get their message out and no extra… Well sounds good except it violates the constitution. That and if the government’s in charge, those who run the government can and will manipulate it.
I would like to get the money out of politics and I think most people agree, regardless of party. To control for that is a logistical nightmare.
It’s not the greatest system we have, but it’s better than everywhere else. And yet it’s obviously extremely fragile and come crashing down at any minute. I don’t have all the answers that’s for sure. But I agree with your premise.