Is being poor a positive or negative trait when it comes to politicians? http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\01\02\story_2-1-2006_pg4_15
It depends where you are. It's almost impossible to get anywhere if you're American but most other places it doesn't make a fat lot of difference. There are many, many British politicians who have been poor and have achieved high office. Funnily enough the son of a woman who used to be my cleaning lady is now in the British parliament. http://www.davidwrightmp.org.uk/
It all depends on your constituency. Some groups like to see that one of their own has suceeded financially before choosing that person to lead politically. Others feel that an impoverished fellow citizen may be more in tune with the needs of the masses. Iranians appears to have chosen the latter, perhaps out of frustration from being talked down to by a succession of religious & political leaders since 1979 following the opulent regime of the Shah. Perhaps the question should be "Is being portrayed as poor ..." P.S. If Ahmie owned something worth defending, would he perhaps tone down the rhetoric a little bit?
I think its ok if a politician is poor as a child or growing up. But if he's still poor(and by poor I mean POOR, not middle class) when he wants to get elected then I'll have to question his ability. I mean, if he can't his own life together where he's not begging for food everyweek, what business does he have running my city, state, country? Ofcourse being a rich a-hole isnt so great either cause you have corruption.
Remember Lawrence of Arabia? Anthony Quin tells Lawrence how much the turks pay him and yet he is poor because he is a river to his people. Turn out he is a liar and got a lot more from the turkes then he said. I am sure this guy is exactly the same.
Ahmadinejad's meager assets are of little interest to me, and poverty is a pretty fickle indicator of political and/or spiritual worth in any case. Given his recent performances, it will take one hell of lot more than small bank accounts to convince me that Ahmadinejad is not just one more slouching troglodyte come to drag the people of the Middle East that much closer to yet another war.
I will address the question I raised here later, but let me note that the single most important factor which IMO led to Ahmadinejad's election victory was his ability to portray himself as a person of meager financial means. Indeed, his campaign adds showed him in his working class home, contrasting his simple life style (including driving an old 1977 car) with the lifestyle of the former mayor of Tehran. The latter was shown in a somewhat opulent mayor's mansion which Ahmadinejad had declined to use during his term as mayor.
It's good to see that throughout the world we are united in falling for schtick. Hell, Americans think that Bush is a rancher.
Man, I shouldn't have sold my '76 Impala a few years back. I could have run for President now that I have eclipsed the age restriction. And if I would have really thought ahead, I would have had my wife keep the '84 Duster she was driving when we met. Nothing says "we mean business" than a first lady tooling around DC in a Duster. Seriously, it sounds like this guy has been focused on his political career and identified a niche that resonates with the voters, and has played it for all its worth. That is probably better than the alternative that he may actually believe that he is leading Iran at a time when armagedon is approaching, so who the hell needs a Hummer? If his financial status is true, it also unfortunately demonstrates a lack of integrity in the electoral process in Iran. That sounds convoluted, but in a truly open electoral process, someone with no financial means would not be able to get enough attention to gain any traction. It just demonstrates that the power is held elsewhere in Iran.
"a white 1977 Peugeot 504" Perhaps he's a big fan of Columbo? http://www.columbo-site.freeuk.com/crash.htm http://www.tvacres.com/autos_police_columbo.htm "If a car reflects the personality of an individual then this junker was the perfect partner for its owner who always wore a dirty, stained raincoat and chomped on half-smoked cigars."
I didn't know they were still manufacturing Duster in the middle 1980's. I guess you can learn something here after all.
Power in Iran is not held in any one organ, not even in the "Supreme Leader" who theoretically has ultimate power in Iran. The proof of that is in the various presidential elections in Iran, which have on each occasion (until Ahmadinejad) resulted in the election of someone who was either seen as a "rival" of Khamenie (i.e. Rafsanjani) or a reformist opposed by those who supported him (i.e. Khatami). Even Ahmadinejad, contrary to what you might have heard, was not the principal figure endorced by those close to Khamenie. He became their de facto choice only when the figure they supported (Larijani) was unable to do well in opinion polls, while another candidate they then turned to (Qalibaf) was alienating the conservative's traditional base by trying to woo more Westernized young voters. If anything, the principal deficiency in Iran's constitutional system (which sometimes becomes its principal virtue as well) is the myriad of power centers each serving the check the power of the other. Ultimately, except in rare cases, what Iran ends up with is a system that acts in contrary fashion and rarely does much except cosmetic surgery on many of the issues that require more focused attention. The reason someone like Ahmadinejad can get to become president in Iran is because once a candidate meets the eligibility requirements, the playing field becomes rather even for the candidates vying for office. They each get equal free air time on state television, as was the case with the 8 approved candidates in the last election. Among that crowded field, what made Ahmadinejad stand up with less affluent voters was his message that he would fight "corruption", with that message gaining added credence by virtue of the fact that despite serving in past political offices, he was living a simple life. That also made Ahmadinejad connect with less aflluent voters making him come across being "more like them", and as one of their own. As to whether he has shunned wealth out of sincere belief, or instead from political calculation, I am in no position to judge. He was a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war who distinguished himself in service and was rewarded by getting some appointed provincial jobs, including as governor of a small province. In each of his positions, going back for two decades, he opted to live a simple life. He later became mayor of Tehran after the conservatives (after having suffered several losses between 1997-2003) took over city hall, defeating reformist candidates in local elections with a low turnout. As mayor, Ahmadinejad was ridiculed and attacked by the reformists holding other offices in Iran, as well as their allies in the reformist print press in Iran. But while he was being carricatured by those who paid any attention to him in North Tehran, he was indeed building a base of support for himself among the less affluent voters in south Tehran. Even today, Ahmadinejad is quite popular among the less affluent, while seen as an embarassment by the rest of the city. Unlike in the US, however, in Iran the less affluent vote in high numbers while the more affluent showed a dismal turnout in the last election. For instance, turnout in Tehran as a whole was over 50%, but turnout figures in south Tehran approached 90% while in north Tehran they barely reached 30%.
Another one who wants to turn the US armed forces into assassins. Here, tough guy, do it yourself. Or beat it back to WR.
And I bet you can say the same about most of the western democracies as well. Certainly in Britain having an ordinary 9-5 job and little money is absolutely NO bar to high office. Frankly, just about the only major exception in the civilised world is the American system which, I agree, has become corrupted... but it's one of the few in that regard. Iran's nothing special. Again... so what? Really? That's most interesting. From your description one can imagine him getting on very well with the writer of this passage. The writer is talking about a city he spent some time in as a young man. 'Even today this city can arouse in me nothing but the most dismal thoughts. For me the name of this Phaeacian city I represents five years of hardship and misery. Five years in which I was forced to earn a living, first as a day laborer, then as a small painter; a truly meager living which never sufficed to appease even my daily hunger. Hunger was then my faithful bodyguard; he never left me for a moment and partook of all I had, share and share alike.' Strangely enough the writer of this piece, (a man familiar with poverty as you can see), took tea with an old teacher of mine in Berlin in the early 20's. He was, by all accounts, quite good company. Even stranger... he, too, was strongly supported by the poorly educated and was also elected on a ticket of fighting corruption. Thinking about it he didn't like the jews much either. I wonder if they're related?