The New Breed of Politician

by Ruth A. Sheets

These days, we are electing people to public office who DON’T WANT TO work for the common good.  More often than not, it seems their crusade is an individualized one that furthers their own personal agenda no matter its effect on the larger population.  They breed fear and distrust of their fellow citizens.

Some among the new breed are mediocre in skill and intellect and just go along.  That is to be expected in a representative democracy.  It is the ones who are extremely skilled and intelligent that can pose the greatest threat. 

The skill I am talking about is not in foreign affairs, economy, environment, science, Constitutional law, health care, knowledge we desperately need.  Their skill is in manipulating people, ideas, and language.  These office-holders have devised a whole range of ways to mask their racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, xenophobia, ageism, etc. as “moral,” even obligatory.

The Secretary of State of Arizona is threatening to keep President Obama’s name off the state’s ballot if he does not receive proof of Obama’s birth in the US.  He claims this somehow protects Americans.  His challenge is purely racist!  Mitt Romney’s father ran for president years ago and no one claimed he wasn’t a citizen even though he was born in Mexico.

The governor of Arizona did not stand up and call the whole thing nonsense.  That’s because she has her own racism and xenophobia in her dealings with Hispanic people living in her state.  For her, it is OK to stop people suspected of being undocumented to demand to see their papers.  But, who gets stopped?  People who “look” Hispanic.  Gov. Brewer believes she is saving America for Americans.  Really?

The Roman Catholic bishops and their politician supporters are obsessed with issues of contraception and that it might be made available free of charge to all women.  What is their beef with contraception?  They say that God doesn’t want women using it.  Why?  They would say contraception doesn’t follow God’s plan for humanity.  In reality, it gives women too much freedom over their own bodies and their own choices.  Using contraception would mean that the awful decision of whether or not to carry a child to term won’t have to be made as often. 

The politicians who support the bishops are worried about women and their potential power.  So, in state legislatures they pass laws that require doctors to lie to women to prevent abortions, force women to have invasive ultrasounds, and criminalize women who choose to have “late-term” abortions no matter the reason.  In my book, that is sexism no matter what they call it.

Marriage is one man and one woman.  Really?  Why?  What is the purpose of marriage?  That has changed over the centuries.  Is it for procreation?  What if someone does not want to have kids?  Is their marriage wrong?  Is it for economics?  If the marriage brings a couple to the brink of poverty, is that marriage wrong?  Denying marriage to same sex couples is legislated homophobia no matter what the politicians who take this position call it, because the meaning of marriage has always been a bit fluid.

Many legislatures, including the Federal Government, are cutting or planning to cut programs that serve the poor among us.  Proponents of the bills say this will save money and cut the deficit.  It is actually classism.  The haves believe the have nots deserve to be where they are because they have made bad life choices. 

If that is the case, why was Wall Street and its bad choices bailed out and why are we subsidizing wealthy oil companies and other high-profit industries?  If we were really intent on lowering the deficit and debt, we would be taking the services and support from the haves who don’t need the help.

The scariest part of all this is that the new breed of politicians uses just the right words and tone to convince us, even though our gut tells us they're wrong.  They even find tokens from each group they are discriminating against to run for office and say things like “If they were really discriminating against my group, I would not be able to run.”   What nonsense.  If Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman were not attractive, would anyone have given either of them a second look?  If Herman Cain hadn’t been the sunny “fool” would he have received much support? 

What we need to do in the face of this new breed is  to think, really listen to what these politicians are saying, and figure out who is benefiting from their discriminatory positions on issues.  Stop allowing them to use fear and hatred to distract and divide us.  We deserve better people than many elected recently.  We need to demand quality leaders by voting in people who want to work for the common good.