Why Government and Politics suck

I'm a bit in a bad mood about politics so I decided to collect all this data to show you the 100% objective reason why Government and Politics sucks so bad. And it's in a pie chart, everyone loves pie charts!

I usually stay out of politics on boards like this, but I really don't know how many of you are aware of what kind of people your government is actually made up of.

And for all of you in Canada or the UK that are laughing at the miserability (rightfully so) of the makeup of American politicians, as a Canadian I recommend you look in the mirror before laughing. Unfortunately this demographic is similar all over the western world that people who make up government a lot of them are worthless lawyers and career politicians.

Now do you know why politics in the western world is usually shit? It's because most of the people you elect are lawyers which is one of if not the MOST morally bankrupt occupation in the world. More over you are electing politicians who have NO REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE in ANYTHING, and just became a politician. Why on earth would you make a 25 year old part of making decisions for millions of people? You think he/she understands what life is like with trials and tribulations of multiple daily problems?

You wonder why current US health care bill is having so many problems? Maybe it's because you have fucking lawyers trying to put it in rather than doctors. You think a lawyer understands how the health care industry works and how to make it treat as many people as possible without costing a lot? Maybe you should talk to the 4 people who actually have medical degrees and HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN IN THE MEDICAL FIELD?

Oh wait we do have 4 of them Jon Boozman, John Barrasso, Tom Coburn, and Rand Paul. Guess what? All 4 of them oppose the Affordable Care Act? Do you think 4 people who actually hold Medical School Degrees and have worked in the medical field have a much more informed opinion of what the hell would actually work then Obama who is another fucking lawyer with a law school degree?

If you actually want the raw excel data I put together you can find it here. I hope you've learned something new. Please stop electing lawyers.

Okay.

@insanejedi: Government and politics will always be problematic, because, as much as they act up, they do tend to represent their populace. And just as the general population has serious problems, a government constructed and supported by them will have serious issues, as well. The best you can do is establish as good of a government as you can and keep trying to remake it. Otherwise, it will stagnate and the worst aspects will fester for too long. Governments and those who work in them will always be challenged, and it takes the will and effort of the populace to keep the government at least mostly functional.

Why politics suck: because in the end of the day, ignorance is bliss and I can adapt to most situations while staying happy.

Why politics suck: because in the end of the day, ignorance is bliss and I can adapt to most situations while staying happy.

Here in the US we have three branches of government: Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. The Legislative branch sets law, the Judicial interprets law, and the Executive executes law.

I don't think it's a problem of lawyers running the country, but one of near-global corruption. Most politicians and nearly every citizen has forgotten or never learned what government is for or to whom it should answer. And when personal life becomes a game of loopholes and irresponsibility, naturally society follows like an obedient rat.

The trouble isn't lawyers, it's lawyers not keeping to their law.

The problem is money in politics, and more specifically, money in campaigns. To be extremely reductionist, the campaign with the most money usually wins, various companies donate large sums of money to politicians' campaigns, and in return the politicians serve their financiers. With the big presidential campaigns (which are a complete joke at this point) starting 2 years before the actual election, the opportunity for massive amounts of money to circulate and fuel corruption is even greater.

Also, yes, the profession of politics being mostly inhabited by lawyers is an issue of lack of scope and experience, and narrow mindedness. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a great 'bit' on that I wish I could find; basically how the rest of life just isn't represented in our government.

You lost me with this. Doctor's would just make it so they can get MORE money from Medicare/Medicaid and make it so that if they don't get the full funds from Medicaid, they can go after every single penny from the patient. Trust me, I write billing software. It's all about money and if you give people in the field the ability to write those bills, they will fuck it up worse. For instance ambulance runs are generally $1,500 depending on the service and when you look at the average amount paid for each trip, you are only looking at about $500. That $1,000 is sometimes allowed to be billed to the patient and sometimes not. If the patient has Medicaid, they cannot bill the patient and Medicaid probably only paid about $400 if that. I used ambulances as an example, but it works the same for hospitals depending on what services were rendered and the type of insurance (if any).

You give them the ability to write the bill and watch the average bill go from $1,500 to $3,000 because they made it so they get even more money than before. It didn't actually help the patient at all, just the place that rendered the service. The service was the exact same, just a higher bill to the insurance.

Given the choice, I would elect a lawyer over fucking Rand Paul any day. He clings to the Constitution like a lover and will gladly cite the Supreme Court when it suits him...but when they deemed that the ACA was constitutional his exact wording was "Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be Constitutional does not make it so." I, as a liberal, have gladly sided with him on this NSA horseshit and the drones, but he's a hypocrite just like anyone else in Congress.

And for what it's worth, I have several family members who are doctors and they all deem the ACA to be, if not great, at least an improvement over our old and (in their words) downright murderous system.

Is it wrong for people who study law to want to become lawmakers?

I've tried to ignore politics lately. If I think about it too much, it makes me frown. The problem, at least as I perceive it, is that politicians won't easily concede on an opposite view of their own, and the media continually perpetuates the narratives they create. The greater good is often overlooked by petty rivalries and short term goals. They think that if you agree with your opponent, it shows weakness. Often it's forgot, that the only reason they're there is to lead and govern the masses towards a greater good. At least, that's the case here in America. Our politicians will cling to the rules only when it suits them. They manipulate their audiences through deceptive wordplay and emotions. So, I guess I just described a lawyer.

I really would rather not get into specifics on my own affiliations, since it would only cause trouble and invalidate my sentiment for people on the opposite side. I only wanted to get that off my mind. Anyways, I don't know what else to say other than #DealWithIt. Just kidding. I understand how politics can easily perturb you, but fair warning, this kind of topic is inevitably going to devolve into something bad.

To be honest? I wish I could get into politics because it pays well and once you get a certain area, you get legit health care for life. Doesn't seem like a bad gig when you think about it.

Uhm... Lawyers are well versed in law and social policy, aren't these the exact people we want in government positions? Also as someone who comes from a family containing many lawyers i take offense at your accusation that they are all vile evil doers, that is just ignorant.

Money is the reason.

I find it incredibly problematic that the people in charge of vital areas of government are people who have no experience of that sector, and only apparent qualifications are electability. For example, here in the UK the minster in charge of education was a journalist before becoming a politician, and has no experience of education, either practical (other than actually being in school and university) or in theory. And yet he is directly in charge of a large scale reform of probably the most important set of exams in the country, which have had to revised several times due to flaws in his proposals, delaying their implementation. Personally the changes which have been agreed seem pretty poor as well. In effect by having a leadership of amateurs you don't get well reasoned policies drawn from evidence and experience but a mash up of left/right wing political doctrine and the ideas of unelected back room staff. In any other large scale system, like a corporation, you would be seen as insane if you regularly handed highly technical positions to complete amatures, but this policy is engrained within the largest systems of all.

I like pie charts.

James Madison was a lawyer. The man wrote the Constitution in an era when people thought that demons and bad blood were responsible for sickness. It's fun to villify lawyers but it's less fun to live in a fucking dictatorship or a theocracy, so maybe you should appreciate that we have lawyers at all.

The reason there are lawyers all over Congress is because Congress is centered around ... making law. If you'd prefer farmers and doctors and businessmen to write your laws, prepare for the Supreme Court to knock them all down for being unconstitutional, because farmers and doctors and businessmen don't understand what goes in to making just, effective law.

It takes a rather charitable interpretation of the past two hundred years of American history to suggest that Congress have been making "just, effective" laws.

I always thought it had to do something with "no right answers" but silly me to think it might be beneficial to have law makers have a degree in law.

You bring up several good points. But I have a bigger problem not with lawyers, but with career politicians. If your entire livelihood depends on staying in power, you will do anything to stay there, and get in debt to people who expect a return (lobbyists).

Also, a huge part of being a lawyer (and a politician) is being more convincing than the other guy (not necessarily bringing the truth). So there's crossover there. Also why I don't really like either.

So it sucks because the people deciding what the laws should be mostly studied law-related subjects in school and had careers that demanded knowledge of such?

@martyarf: In fact it does not. The Constitution itself is a landmark document on par with Magna Carta, and the reason why is it created a mechanism to deal with lawmakers overstepping their bounds. There absolutely have been unjust laws created by legislature or the executive, few of them remain because of the genius of James Madison.

@dr_mantas: I think the 'performance' aspect of lawyering is perhaps a little overstated by Hollywood. In reality, law is extremely procedural, especially Constitutional law. In real life, no amount of emotional, heartwrenching speeches is going to convince a judge that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply or that all the evidence presented to that point requires reinterpretation. If any judge or lawyer does place public speaking over process, they can expect stalled careers and appealed verdicts.

I don't know what you are responding to, but it sure isn't what I wrote.

This has little to do with why government 'sucks' in the west. The real answers are way more complicated than 'lawyers are evil'.

Lawmakers mainly come from law school? Nooooo... As a person who's going to school for Constitutional Law, let me fill you in on some motives for those who get into this. Outside of a few rotten apples, everyone is in it to do two things: do the right thing and make a ton of money. However, one of the problems that come into play when we, as a society, value those who speak more than those who will listen. The dominance that talking over someone else establishes is attractive and those are the people that get voted into positions because they are perceived as strong and capable, yet their limitations are usually (note: not always) quite clear. The second comes from not knowing what the "right thing" is. Not everything is always apparent. And worse, not everything is popular.

Who was the comedian?

@ilovebees: Al Franken

Man, it's almost like it is advantageous for the people whose job it is to debate issues and draft legislation to have a background and experience in writing, interpreting, and debating law!

Congress, the legal profession, the medical profession, and every other profession have issues with corruption. The problem isn't the backgrounds of the people involved, it's the implementation and execution of ethical oversight.