This is an unpaid for political announcement.... Not really but I had to say something.
"Golden folks" of electoral politics
Fri, 2010-02-12 12:58
#1
"Golden folks" of electoral politics
Fri, 2010-02-12 13:04
#2
Title should read: "Golden folks of politics".
We've all seen them. The do-no-wrong "golden folks" of politics (most often, but not exclusively young and male), elevated on a pedestal with their head in the clouds, pampered by those around them to bolster their sense of entitlement and "specialness", cut slack and defended 100% on everything. We see them in all political parties. Some of them may go on to make significant contributions (which we may or may not agree with).
And then one day, often as a result of their own hubris, some of them fall from grace when character flaws or inappropriate behaviour is revealed. Their golden luster proves to be fool's gold. And when they fall, they fall hard as a feeding frenzy of enemies and former friends pile on to either say "I told you so", or "I'm so disappointed". I can only guess that their "real friends" fed into the ego orgy and never tried to help them get their feet back on the ground before the damage was done.
Is this a manifestation of our patriarchal society? Are fallen "superheros" harder to rehabilitate than mere mortals who are prone to make mistakes? Should we avoid the "golden folks" approach and hold everyone to the same standards?
Fri, 2010-02-12 13:49
#3
"Are fallen "superheros" harder to rehabilitate than mere mortals who are prone to make mistakes?"
C'mon, he only threw the one interception, and while it killed the Colts' chances, they wouldn't have even been in the game without him...unless...you ARE talking about Peyton Manning, right?
Fri, 2010-02-12 14:07
#4
Close. It was Tiger Woods. Good point. The phenomenon may be not be limited to politics.
Fri, 2010-02-12 19:41
#5
Justin Trudeau, a similar accident waiting to happen ...
Fri, 2010-02-12 19:45
#6
Sure you're on the trail of the hubristic P2, or is it the libidinous? (although I suppose they're not mutually exclusive)
Fri, 2010-02-12 20:38
#7
Was it Plutarch or Suetonius who first identified a phenomenon called "Ceasar madness"? Either way, historians amatuer and professional have tried to link some physiological cause, such as lead pipes and lead poisoning to explain the "phenomena".
It's my view that "Ceasar Madness" happens when a person is surrounded by people who agree with everything they say. They come to believe they can do no wrong, that every idea they have is a great one. It leads to madness because we all need to bounce ideas or feelings or whatever off each other, it keeps us sane when people call us on our crap. Conversation is a way of exploring, mending, erecting and demolishing mental, and therefore behavioral boundries.
In the cellebrity world, it's not hard to imagine that O.J. Simpson, football protoge as a kid, was never called on small intransgressions at first, then larger ones and larger ones until he felt deep inside that he was entitled to kill his ex wife, like Caligula felt entitled to declare war on Neptune.
Someone like Justin Trudeau could go through his formative years and into adulthood never knowing that he was afforded this advantage or that because of his father. And, it's not really his fault to a large extent, if that's what happened. People make allowances, extend privelege and he'd never have to know. It would take a strong person indeed to be cognisant, in those circumstances, of what are in fact his own accomplishements and what are not. Some might be apparent, many others not.
In Hollywood and in politics players are warned not to believe thier own P.R. But, they all do at some point.
Fri, 2010-02-12 23:31
#8
I still think the old libido is behind much "madness". :D
Sat, 2010-02-13 00:40
#9
RevolutionPlease
Think we could have a debate about the "Golden folks" versus "The Young guns"? Giamboner notwithstanding? Just joshing because I need a break. Leaving a thought.