Feeds:
Inlägg
Kommentarer

Posts Tagged ‘Politiker’

Country Life

Drottning Elizabeth II, som fyller 90 år i år, är den regent som uppnått högst ålder och regerat längst.

Drottningen har lyckats bygga en positiv image genom att helt enkelt inte bry sig alltför mycket om vare sig media eller ”imagebyggande”.

Trots medias ständiga behov av konflikter och negativa infallsvinklar koncentrerar sig Drottningen istället på att göra det hon alltid gjort, och göra det bra. Kanske finns det en lärdom här för alla politiker och beslutsfattare?

Country Life, som kallar sig för ”The voice of the countryside”, gratulerar Storbritanniens statsöverhuvud i en ledare där man också summerar hemligheten bakom hennes popularitet.

She may wield no political power, but The Queen, at 90, still has an influence the world’s leaders can only dream of.

[…]

The Duke of Cambridge summed up his grandmother’s incredible reign, saying: ‘The Queen is someone who’s been there, done it, bought the T-shirt’ and his wife added: ‘I have no idea where she gets her energy from!’ Although she has lived her entire life in the media’s glare, she has never courted its attention or tried to use it to manipulate her image. Instead, she has built a foundation on the deep roots of her family and faith and dedicated herself unswervingly and tirelessly to duty.

Often accused in the past of being too traditional, it is now her old-fashioned values and steadfastness that have made her someone to be admired and emulated the world over. Her long reign and vast accumulated wisdom have helped to stabilize relations across the world, especially within the Commonwealth.

Detta omslag passar utmärkt vår serie ”Tidskriftsomslag vi gillar”. Bilden på framsidan (20 april, 2016) är Pietro Annigonis berömda porträtt från 1955.

Read Full Post »

VÄLJARE | Att framhäva politikernas personlighet och privatliv är något både media och politiker inte tycks kunna få nog av.

The American Interest

Det personliga säljer och politiker vill gärna få väljarna att tro att han eller hon är din kompis.

Det är därför Fredrik Reinfeldt gärna talade om att han tyckte om att städa och Stefan Löfven inte har något emot att berätta om sin arbetarbakgrund. Och det är därför Annie Lööf inte så sällan talar om att hon är uppvuxen i glesbygd.

Dessa berättelser är till för att väcka sympatier hos väljarna, få dem att identifiera sig med politikerna och öka förtroendet för politiken.

Om politikerna kan berätta en sympatisk historia om sitt liv hoppas man att detta skall öka sympatierna för deras politik. Och locka över tveksamma väljare.

Om väljarna kan fås att tro att politikern är ”som människor är mest” kan man minimera risken för att väljarna röstar på någon annan p.g.a. politiska förslag som inte är till förmån för väljaren. För inte skulle väl ”min kompis” fatta beslut som skulle skada mig som väljare?!

Resultatet blir att vi allt för ofta ser politiker som prioriterar deltagande i caféprogram och morgonsoffor istället för att möta hårdslående journalister.

En som var mästare på att säga ingenting var förra hälso- och landstingsborgarrådet Filippa Reinfeldt (M).

Den som lyckas hitta en intervju där hon verkligen får stå till svars för sin politik är bara att gratulera. Istället hittar man desto fler lättviktiga reportage och personporträtt som innehåller noll av värde för den politiskt intresserade.

En som tycker att det hela har gått för långt är författaren R. Jay Magill, Jr. som skriver om faran av politisk närhet mellan väljare och politiker (och media som så gärna bidrar till detta).

As the American presidential primary season gears up in earnest, prudent men and women would do well to steel themselves against the coming onslaught of mawkish promotionals bound to head in our general direction.

[…]

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign message, too, is sculpted around intimate details of her life, including her upbringing by her long-suffering mother Dorothy Rodham and her rule-obsessed father Hugh Rodham. The script cries out, “I, like you, have been a victim”, a message crafted to resonate with Democratic constituencies. The New York Times eagerly assists in the effort; note the cover story of the July 19 New York Times Magazine by Mark Leibovich, “The Once and Future Hillary”, followed on Tuesday, July 21, by Amy Chozick’s front-page story, “Clinton Father’s Brusque Style, Mostly Unspoken but Powerful.”

Of course, emotional appeal has been an effective rhetorical device since the beginning of rhetorical devices.Of course, emotional appeal has been an effective rhetorical device since the beginning of rhetorical devices.

[…]

Some of what has happened to American political culture in recent decades is common to Western democracies generally, and some is not. On the one hand, there is evidence of a general personalization of politics in Western democracies over the past three decades. In Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands there has been a increasing focus on the personality of a political figure: his personal preferences, consumer choices, how he looks, behavioral tics, psychological and emotional makeup, personal histories or private family affairs.

[…]

Though certainly there is civic good that comes of knowing that an elected official is laundering money, lying to the citizenry about matters of the public interest, or defrauding taxpayers, it is unclear if knowing about politicians’ private affairs actually matters in their conduct of affairs of state. Europeans tend to think it does not; politicians are not asked to share the intimate details of their private or emotional lives because those details are deemed irrelevant to politics. But Americans tend to think it does.

[…]

Whether one prefers European or American sensibilities in such matters, political leaders are not just ordinary beings like you and me. They have willfully entered public life and, in a representative democracy, agreed to accept the responsibility of adopting a representative public role within it. They have agreed, in effect, to perform for us. They are therefore charged not with disclosing their personal feelings about certain subjects but with achieving what their constituents want them to achieve. This is why politicians in democracies are also known as “public servants”, an arrangement we too often forget, or from which we have been distracted by the culture of political celebrity.

After all, democracy involves giving up some things you want and begrudgingly accepting some things you don’t. And since getting things done is what we expect of our politicians, we ought to focus less on how “sincerely” a politician holds a given belief and more on how effective he is on achieving the ends with which he has been tasked. Indeed, “sincere” beliefs can beget opposing ideological rigidities so powerful as to make pragmatic compromise all but impossible.

[…]

We would be wise to remember that a performing self only becomes “fake” when the standards and qualities set for the private self are substituted into the template for the public political self. It would be better, and it would, by extension, generate less fakeness in the end, if we simply removed the expectation of wanting some of the positive qualities we set for the private self—authenticity, genuineness, sincerity—from the category of the public, political self altogether. We should instead demand other qualities from the political self that have nothing to do with private subjectivity: a strong work ethic, clarity of expression, sound judgment, and even objectivity. Rebuilding the wall between the two kinds of selves and understanding that this demarcation holds is not only morally advisable but would help reinvigorate public life. It would also free politicians from the tyranny of the sense that they must attempt to be intimate with strangers—even if they are voters.

Tidskriftsomslag: The American Interest, September-oktober 2015 (Vol. XI, nr. 1)

Read Full Post »

Russ Cargill

Russell ”Russ” Cargill (utsedd av USA:s president att leda Environmental Protection Agency): I want 10,000 tough guys, and I want 10,000 soft guys to make the tough guys look tougher! And here’s how I want them arranged: tough, soft, tough, tough, soft, tough, soft, soft, tough, tough, soft, soft, tough, soft, tough, soft!

[pause]

Soldier: Sir, I’m afraid you’ve gone mad with power.

Cargill: Of course I have. You ever tried going mad without power? It’s boring, no one listens to you.

The Simpsons Movie

Read Full Post »

SPRÅK | Så nu är det alltså officiellt. Barack Obama är en president med stort självförtroende.

Confidence

Enligt psykologen James Pennebaker vid University of Texas är personer med självförtroende mindre egotrippade i sitt sätt att uttrycka sig. De använder ”vi” mer än ”jag” när de talar.

”Once you appreciate that ‘I’ tracks attention, you see it’s a powerful marker of a speaker’s psychological state.”

Andrea Bartz har sammanfattat några av Pennebakers slutsatser i Psychology Today. En av dessa berör Obama.

Early in his presidency, Obama had the lowest ”I”-word usage of the last 12 presidents, a sign of self-assurance. Less confident people use hedging phrases (”I think…”).

Är detta också ett sätt att, indirekt, kontrollera om politiker själva tror på vad de säger? Man skulle kunna anta att politiker med stort självtroende därmed också har stort förtroende för den politik de föreslår. Med andra ord; inget bullshit, de säger som det är.

Tyvärr. Så enkelt är det inte. Även lögnare undviker ordet ”jag”.

Pinocchios use oddly stiff, impersonal language while spinning their tales. ”When you’re lying, you almost distance yourself from the words,” Pennebaker says. ”You’re not owning your statements.”

Typiskt. Det skulle naturligtvis vara för enkelt om det räckte med att räkna pronomen i politikers tal för att få indikation på ärliga avsikter. En och annan grävande journalist lär behövas även i framtiden.

Read Full Post »

The New Yorker .

Bild: The New Yorker. Fler av tidskriftens teckningar finns här.

Read Full Post »

The New Yorker.

  Bild: The New Yorker. Fler teckningar med politiskt tema här.

Read Full Post »

KRÖNIKÖR | Den roligaste samhällskritiken hittar man idag hos Rod Liddle i hans veckokrönika i The Spectator.

Till skillnad från många andra är han oförutsägbar. Mannen kan tänka själv och har en förmåga att se det absurda hos både vänstern och högern.

Och har man dessutom Shakespeares språk som arbetsverktyg så har man också automatiskt vissa fördelar när man skriver.

I sin senaste krönika svingar han mot politikerskrået generellt.

I suppose it is largely our fault that most politicians are mentally ill. We eviscerate them daily and one assumes that some of the poison eventually seeps through and begins to affect their central nervous systems. Being held up to ridicule for their incompetences, being dependent for their livelihoods upon the whims of idiots, and being forced to speak in a language from which all real meaning has been excised obviously takes its toll. I have been reading the diaries of that strange former minister Edwina Currie — a woman with whom I share virtually no political conviction but who I have nonetheless always rather liked as a person. She is definitely mad. I don’t mean this in an unkindly manner; it’s just that to read her diaries is a little like being led into a place where orderlies in tunics remove your bootlaces and you have to ask for a nurse to light your cigarette.

[…]

Edwina’s madness is the more common one, that of self-delusion, the bizarre (to us) notion that she is right about everything and absolutely brilliant, like the elderly chap wired up to a drip in the boobyhatch who thinks he is the Duke of Wellington. At one point in Edwina’s book, wrapped up in some rage, she howls about how Margaret Thatcher kicked her out of the cabinet after the controversy over the alleged salmonella infection of eggs — something else Edwina got wrong. And does she howl! And then concludes by saying: ‘Ah well, I’ve made a success of my life since, which is more than can be said of Mrs T herself, and so many other people.’

To write that, I would argue, you have to be quite mad.

[…]

Perhaps this is why they go mad so easily, that they are forced to spout stuff all the time which they know full well to be rubbish – and is not believed by the vast majority of the electorate.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »