How would you allocate the cause and effect of this change? Is it the erstwhile politicians who became influencers and peddled themselves to a hapless public? Or is it the desolate marketplace of the electorate's attention span that forced the politicians into a new mode?
Also: "decrepitude" is a great word.
"Politics is show business for ugly people." - Paul Begala
I think that the politicians have capitalized on the economics of the marketplace. Politicians are aware of what the people will grab onto and relate with. The politicians are not being forced into this new mode, they are profiting off of it and using it as a tool to remain in power while failing the public.
Do you think that it is the politicians' responsibility to channel the putative consensus of the people or is it their responsibility to be visionaries and attempt to shift the consensus of the people?
If it is the former, is there a noble version of the politician-cum-influencer that might be the most effective conduit of the consensus?
In the case of the latter, is the difference between an "influencer" and a "leader" a matter of perspective, or can we distinguish between these categories based on merit?
Interesting take. I wrote a piece about "the rise of the celebrity as politician" which you might like to read.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/40352/the-rise-of-the-celebrity-as-politician
I like your take.
How would you allocate the cause and effect of this change? Is it the erstwhile politicians who became influencers and peddled themselves to a hapless public? Or is it the desolate marketplace of the electorate's attention span that forced the politicians into a new mode?
Also: "decrepitude" is a great word.
"Politics is show business for ugly people." - Paul Begala
I think that the politicians have capitalized on the economics of the marketplace. Politicians are aware of what the people will grab onto and relate with. The politicians are not being forced into this new mode, they are profiting off of it and using it as a tool to remain in power while failing the public.
Do you think that it is the politicians' responsibility to channel the putative consensus of the people or is it their responsibility to be visionaries and attempt to shift the consensus of the people?
If it is the former, is there a noble version of the politician-cum-influencer that might be the most effective conduit of the consensus?
In the case of the latter, is the difference between an "influencer" and a "leader" a matter of perspective, or can we distinguish between these categories based on merit?