In Defense of Politicians: Stephen Medvic

1685 Words4 Pages

Stephen Medvic, In Defense of Politicians, discusses why Americans feel that politicians are dishonest. In 2007, a Gallup poll about honesty and ethical standards for occupations, showed that only 12 and 9 percent of people felt that Congressmen and State office holders held high standards, (Medvic p. 2). In addition, Americans tend to like their representatives more than the members of Congress because they view them as actual people. Americans view Congress as a group of politicians who are greedy and not representing their interests, (Medvic p. 4). Popular culture also plays a role in why Americans do not trust politicians. Late-night television shows use politicians in their comedy skits, where their mistakes are punch lines for comedians. A study produced by Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris found that people who view late-night television shows have a more negative view of candidates, (Medvic p. 5). In particular, people who view The Daily Show have drastically less faith in the electoral process, (Medvic p. 5). Russell Peterson argues that these jokes as “implicitly anti-democratic” because they declare the entire system as fraudulent, (Medvic p. 5). The public falls into three main traps about politicians. The first main trap that the public falls into is “The Leader-and-Follower Trap.” The public wants politicians to be leaders, but when they do not lead the way citizens want, they are disliked. Expecting politicians to lead the way they believe the country should go and also follow what citizens want is unfair to them, (Medvic p. 9). Another trap that the public falls into is the “The Principled-and-Pragmatic Trap.” The public wants politicians to stand up for their beliefs, but to also negotiate to solve issues... ... middle of paper ... ...him losing his Congress seat was when he supported an embargo against the British that would shut down all future international trade. In the eyes of the Massachusetts people, this was treason because a numerous amount of merchant, shipbuilding, and fishing businesses were located there. His support of the embargo collapsed the majority of businesses in Massachusetts. Nine months before his term was complete, the legislator voted on JQA’s successor, (Kennedy 44). In the eyes of JFK, John Quincy Adams was courageous because he stood up for what he believed was right and in the process, surrendered his reelection. He sacrificed his own popularity by taking a polar opposite stance on the embargo than the people of Massachusetts. In addition, John Quincy Adams sacrificed his loyalty rewards with his party when he publicly attended the opposition’s party town meeting.

Open Document