The Future of Politics

[August1991]

California Governor and former actor Arnold Schwarzenegger swept into Toronto Tuesday, all smiles and handshakes at the start of a three-day Canadian visit.

...

He arrived shortly after at a grocery store where he promoted California produce. Shoppers who had not anticipated his visit stood dumbfounded, some taking pictures with their cell phones.

Link

Becoming famous is hard to do.

In the 1950s and 1960s, an unknown man could use the political world to become famous. In this world, a person should first become famous before entering politics.

Stronach, Drainville, Ignatieff, Bush Jnr, Hillary Clinton - all were famous before getting into politics. Dion is further proof; his Dad was famous - like Gilles Duceppe's Dad.

Only Harper is old school; and his style has no future.

[Mad_Michael]

California Governor and former actor Arnold Schwarzenegger swept into Toronto Tuesday, all smiles and handshakes at the start of a three-day Canadian visit.

...

He arrived shortly after at a grocery store where he promoted California produce. Shoppers who had not anticipated his visit stood dumbfounded, some taking pictures with their cell phones.

Link

Becoming famous is hard to do.

In the 1950s and 1960s, an unknown man could use the political world to become famous. In this world, a person should first become famous before entering politics.

Stronach, Drainville, Ignatieff, Bush Jnr, Hillary Clinton - all were famous before getting into politics. Dion is further proof; his Dad was famous - like Gilles Duceppe's Dad.

Only Harper is old school; and his style has no future.

Bunk.

Arguably, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both wildly successful politicians (more so than any of the examples that you give). Neither one had any 'fame' prior to elected office.

[jdobbin]

Stronach, Drainville, Ignatieff, Bush Jnr, Hillary Clinton - all were famous before getting into politics. Dion is further proof; his Dad was famous - like Gilles Duceppe's Dad.

Only Harper is old school; and his style has no future.

Dion was famous for his father in Quebec and all of Canada? I wouldn't say that.

Duceppe won the leadership because of his father?

[August1991]

Dion was famous for his father in Quebec and all of Canada? I wouldn't say that.

Duceppe won the leadership because of his father?

Maybe not all of Canada but Chretien invited Dion to Ottawa because of the family name. Leon Dion was about as well known in Quebec as, say, Marshall McLuhan in English Canada.

There's no doubt that Gilles Duceppe succeeded because of his father. Jean Duceppe is as famous in Quebec as, say, Paul Newman is in the US.

Bunk.

Arguably, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both wildly successful politicians (more so than any of the examples that you give). Neither one had any 'fame' prior to elected office.

I think I'm referring to name recognition. Bush Jnr had a critical advantage early in the 2000 primary season because of his family name.

Ulysses S. Grant became president based on his fame as a general. This was true of Washington, de Gaulle and Eisenhower too. In these cases however, I think their political success was more due to their military success rather than name recognition.

When Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California in 1966, he succeeded largely because everyone knew him and recognized his name. Ken Dryden is a less successful example in Canada.

I'm not saying that unknowns (such as Tony Blair or Bill Clinton) cannot succeed in politics. Nor am I saying that having a recognizable name is a guarantee of success (such as Ken Dryden).

My point is that fame and celebrity have become far easier to achieve nowadays which makes the competition to become famous more difficult. The field is crowded and anyone with a recognizable name or star power has a leg up on the competition. It is increasingly hard to get people's attention.

Pierre Curzi and Justin Trudeau are two of the latest examples. I think there will be more in the future.

[jdobbin]

Maybe not all of Canada but Chretien invited Dion to Ottawa because of the family name. Leon Dion was about as well known in Quebec as, say, Marshall McLuhan in English Canada.

There's no doubt that Gilles Duceppe succeeded because of his father. Jean Duceppe is as famous in Quebec as, say, Paul Newman is in the US.

I think I'm referring to name recognition. Bush Jnr had a critical advantage early in the 2000 primary season because of his family name.

Ulysses S. Grant became president based on his fame as a general. This was true of Washington, de Gaulle and Eisenhower too. In these cases however, I think their political success was more due to their military success rather than name recognition.

When Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California in 1966, he succeeded largely because everyone knew him and recognized his name. Ken Dryden is a less successful example in Canada.

I'm not saying that unknowns (such as Tony Blair or Bill Clinton) cannot succeed in politics. Nor am I saying that having a recognizable name is a guarantee of success (such as Ken Dryden).

My point is that fame and celebrity have become far easier to achieve nowadays which makes the competition to become famous more difficult. The field is crowded and anyone with a recognizable name or star power has a leg up on the competition. It is increasingly hard to get people's attention.

Pierre Curzi and Justin Trudeau are two of the latest examples. I think there will be more in the future.

Dion is still little known in Canada, so much so that people can't even offer an opinion of how is doing because they just don't know him.

I'll defer to you on Duceppe.

As for the rest of Canadian politicians, most are not famous, rich or well known when the first run for office.

[August1991]

As for the rest of Canadian politicians, most are not famous, rich or well known when the first run for office.

I would argue that the only famous people in English Canada are politicians and hockey players and maybe a few TV journalists.

What English Canadians, walking down a random street in a Canadian city, would attract attention like Schwarzenegger would? Gordie Howe? Mike Myers? Pierre Trudeau?

[Riverwind]

What English Canadians, walking down a random street in a Canadian city, would attract attention like Schwarzenegger would? Gordie Howe? Mike Myers? Pierre Trudeau?

William Shatner, Avril Lavigne, Pamela Anderson, Jim Carrey, Keanu Reeves, Dan Aykroyd, Michael J. Fox, Wayne Gretzky

[Mad_Michael]

I think I'm referring to name recognition. Bush Jnr had a critical advantage early in the 2000 primary season because of his family name.

Ulysses S. Grant became president based on his fame as a general. This was true of Washington, de Gaulle and Eisenhower too. In these cases however, I think their political success was more due to their military success rather than name recognition.

When Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California in 1966, he succeeded largely because everyone knew him and recognized his name. Ken Dryden is a less successful example in Canada.

I'm not saying that unknowns (such as Tony Blair or Bill Clinton) cannot succeed in politics. Nor am I saying that having a recognizable name is a guarantee of success (such as Ken Dryden).

My point is that fame and celebrity have become far easier to achieve nowadays which makes the competition to become famous more difficult. The field is crowded and anyone with a recognizable name or star power has a leg up on the competition. It is increasingly hard to get people's attention.

Pierre Curzi and Justin Trudeau are two of the latest examples. I think there will be more in the future.

Okay, since you seem to be pushing this topic, I'll address the core issues since the phenomena you describe is quite old and well known - and on the rise.

First of all, famous names have had electoral advantage in elected politics going back for centuries. Nothing new here. British politics of the 17th and 18th century is full of it (Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger, etc). Politics in India or Pakistan is totally dominated by 'famous names'. Without any doubt, evidence of this trend increasing is an indication of a failing of democracy. The more functional and robust your democracy, the less you will see of this phenomena.

Secondly, there are two traditional methods of rising up to electoral success. The first is natural charisma and demonstrated abilities. This is apparently quite rare, but by far the most powerful and likely successful method of getting to the top (Clinton and Blair are good examples of this type).

The other method is 'insider-player' - here one works the back rooms, pays one's dues and kisses the right ass and waits in line for your turn (Jean Chretien is a classic example of this type). Unfortunately for our political elites, this second method is becoming less and less viable as television has transformed the political process into a beauty contest. All the backroom skill can't make you look pretty on tv and thus, 'insider-player' type politicians are increasingly unable to achieve the 'brass ring' of public popularity.

As the traditional track of 'insider-player' fails, the need for leaders to fill offices keeps rising. Thus, there is a vacuum here. Nature abhors a vacuum (so they say) and celebrity is the model that is now being adopted to fulfill this void. It is a natural fit since celebrities (by definition) are pretty on tv.

It is also notable that the trend towards 'famous names' or 'celebrities' is usually most advanced where democracy is weak, or where political parties are comparatively weak.

In our western world, USA is where the trend is most advanced (they have a traditionally weak attachment to democracy and traditionally weak political parties). As it stands now, I understand some 18% of Congress is blood or marriage related to previous members of Congress.

Canada has no where near the same percentage, though Quebec is where the trend is most notable.

[M.Dancer]

Pierre Curzi?

[August1991]

Deleted --

[August1991]

What English Canadians, walking down a random street in a Canadian city, would attract attention like Schwarzenegger would? Gordie Howe? Mike Myers? Pierre Trudeau?

William Shatner, Avril Lavigne, Pamela Anderson, Jim Carrey, Keanu Reeves, Dan Aykroyd, Michael J. Fox, Wayne Gretzky

With the exception of Wayne Gretzky (hockey player), all famous like Mike Myers as Hollywood actors.

I know this is a source of embarrassment in English Canada but I don't think it should be. Canadian celebrities are hockey players and politicians. In the outside world, who has heard of Guy Lafleur and Joe Clark. Yet everyone in Canada (French and English) knows these names, and yet few foreigners do.

How to know whether someone is a Canadian? Ask them to name a hockey player or a federal politician.

Pierre Curzi?

The Alec Baldwin of Quebec.

Okay, since you seem to be pushing this topic, I'll address the core issues since the phenomena you describe is quite old and well known - and on the rise.

Me too.

Pitt the Younger? Why not Alexander and Phillip of Macedonia? I'm not denying dynasties - heck, that's the basis of monarchy. Indeed, i suspect your example is precisely that.

Modern fame is different. Bush Jnr did not cadge money and votes in 1999 because of a dynasty. He did it because of the identifiable family name.

First of all, famous names have had electoral advantage in elected politics going back for centuries. Nothing new here. British politics of the 17th and 18th century is full of it (Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger, etc). Politics in India or Pakistan is totally dominated by 'famous names'. Without any doubt, evidence of this trend increasing is an indication of a failing of democracy. The more functional and robust your democracy, the less you will see of this phenomena.

On what basis do you conclude this evidence of a "failing democracy"?

To me, the best measure of legitimate government (democracy) is whether citizens pay their taxes or not. It has nothing to do with whether political leaders are movie stars or not.

How are "famous names" evidence of a "failing democracy"?

It seems to me, Mad Michael, that you don't like the US and you seek any way to denigrate it. You have the right to such an opinion, even it leads you into error.

Secondly, there are two traditional methods of rising up to electoral success. The first is natural charisma and demonstrated abilities. This is apparently quite rare, but by far the most powerful and likely successful method of getting to the top (Clinton and Blair are good examples of this type).

The other method is 'insider-player' - here one works the back rooms, pays one's dues and kisses the right ass and waits in line for your turn (Jean Chretien is a classic example of this type). Unfortunately for our political elites, this second method is becoming less and less viable as television has transformed the political process into a beauty contest. All the backroom skill can't make you look pretty on tv and thus, 'insider-player' type politicians are increasingly unable to achieve the 'brass ring' of public popularity.

As the traditional track of 'insider-player' fails, the need for leaders to fill offices keeps rising. Thus, there is a vacuum here. Nature abhors a vacuum (so they say) and celebrity is the model that is now being adopted to fulfill this void. It is a natural fit since celebrities (by definition) are pretty on tv.

I think this theory is referred to as "lifers, talent and mandarins". (Search on the Internet.) It usually applies to bureaucracy, not politics.

It is also notable that the trend towards 'famous names' or 'celebrities' is usually most advanced where democracy is weak, or where political parties are comparatively weak.

In our western world, USA is where the trend is most advanced (they have a traditionally weak attachment to democracy and traditionally weak political parties). As it stands now, I understand some 18% of Congress is blood or marriage related to previous members of Congress.

Canada has no where near the same percentage, though Quebec is where the trend is most notable.

The US and Quebec are "weak" democracies?

Gimme a break. Where else in the world do transfers of power occur so seamlessly as in the US? (Imagine any other country that could have decided such a transfer of power as the US in 2000.)

For over 200 years, the US has managed the transfer of ultimate government power between individuals without death or bloodshed. To my knowledge, no other society in history has ever achieved that.

Russia's first peaceful, non-mortal transfer occurred in 2000. China has arguably never really known such.

Quebec? Where else in the world could people accept a popular verdict so peacefully as in Quebec in 1995?

Americans and Quebecers, and their politicians, are true democrats.

----

Returning to the OP, my simple point is the following: politicians have to make a name, they have to be known. It makes sense that someone would first become known and then enter politics. As a politician, it's hard to attract attention.

When Pitt the Younger became PM, he sought votes from a large group of male landowners. When Blair sought votes, he sought votes from some 40 million voters over the age of 18 who all had access to television. Blair is a tall, blue-eyed, attractive man.

In the future, when everyone has access to the Internet, how difficult will it be for someone to become famous aznd attract attention?

[Mad_Michael]

I know this is a source of embarrassment in English Canada...

Please state how you "know this".

Can you cite a study or opinion poll or anything to support this absurd assertion?

Me too.

Pitt the Younger? Why not Alexander and Phillip of Macedonia? I'm not denying dynasties - heck, that's the basis of monarchy. Indeed, i suspect your example is precisely that.

Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger were not royalty/monarchy. They were elected leaders in 18th/19th century British Parliament.

Modern fame is different. Bush Jnr did not cadge money and votes in 1999 because of a dynasty. He did it because of the identifiable family name.

No doubt just like Pitt the Younger.

I don't see anything new here at all. The rise of famous names/celebrities is a sign of democratic weakness. No surprise that Quebec shows the most advanced form of this trend in Canada.

On what basis do you conclude this evidence of a "failing democracy"?

In a healthy democracy, the people elect the best qualified candidates. When candidates achieve electoral success based on their name or fame, that is not a healthy democracy - it is trending towards elite rule (fascism).

To me, the best measure of legitimate government (democracy) is whether citizens pay their taxes or not. It has nothing to do with whether political leaders are movie stars or not.

You cannot define democracy as the only form of legitimate government. I agree that it is, but not absolutely or necessarily so.

It seems to me, Mad Michael, that you don't like the US and you seek any way to denigrate it. You have the right to such an opinion, even it leads you into error.

It seems to me that:

A) you are attacking/insulting a person just because they disagree with you.

you are projecting

Btw, I am an American, so last laugh is on you.

The real question is, why do you feel the need to attack me personally for disagreeing with you?

I think this theory is referred to as "lifers, talent and mandarins". (Search on the Internet.) It usually applies to bureaucracy, not politics.

And why can this theory not apply to politics? Just because it usually applies to bureaucracy?

The US and Quebec are "weak" democracies?

Yes, pretty much. But then again, most western nations demonstrate relatively weak attachments to democratic principles.

Gimme a break. Where else in the world do transfers of power occur so seamlessly as in the US? (Imagine any other country that could have decided such a transfer of power as the US in 2000.)

Odd question.

Transfers of power are almost always seemless in western nations. The only one in recent memory where the transition wasn't 'seemless' was the USA in 2000. So what's your point here?

But this has little to do with analysing the relative strength of attachment to democratic principles.

For over 200 years, the US has managed the transfer of ultimate government power between individuals without death or bloodshed. To my knowledge, no other society in history has ever achieved that.

Your knowledge is apparently lacking. Britain can make that same claim and add a few centuries to the time frame.

Russia's first peaceful, non-mortal transfer occurred in 2000. China has arguably never really known such.

Quebec? Where else in the world could people accept a popular verdict so peacefully as in Quebec in 1995?

Americans and Quebecers, and their politicians, are true democrats.

So the primary measure of democracy is the number of people killed when the government changes?

As long as no one is killed in process, it is democracy eh?

Returning to the OP, my simple point is the following: politicians have to make a name, they have to be known. It makes sense that someone would first become known and then enter politics. As a politician, it's hard to attract attention.

When Pitt the Younger became PM, he sought votes from a large group of male landowners. When Blair sought votes, he sought votes from some 40 million voters over the age of 18 who all had access to television. Blair is a tall, blue-eyed, attractive man.

In the future, when everyone has access to the Internet, how difficult will it be for someone to become famous aznd attract attention?

Follow the logic of your own argument. When everyone has access to the internet, everyone has the ability to make themselves famous and attract attention. Fame is thus likely to become a flooded market. And anything that gets 'flooded' on the market tends to drop in value over time.

Let us hope for the sake of democracy that it does.