I’m not sure that’s true? There are certainly people complaining about politicians from every era, but specifically shameless grifters? In similar volume to today?
For instance, you can find no end of people who utterly despise Margaret Thatcher and think that she’s the worst thing to ever happen to the UK. But as far as I am aware, even the people who hate her tend to think that she genuinely believed in what she was doing. The idea that she was wrecking the country for her own personal gain isn’t a mainstream belief is it?
Now contrast that with somebody like Boris Johnson. A politician who is hated in similar volume to Thatcher. But you can’t say that the accusations levelled at Johnson are anything at all alike to those Thatcher received, can you?
The same goes for American politics. Take a look at the criticisms directed at Trump compared with those directed at either Bush. There is a qualitative difference.
I don't know, I was little when Thatcher was around and not British, but I do remember her being criticized for stuff like "Margaret Thatcher had a deal with Rupert Murdoch to get elected in exchange for granting him more media control".
The Bush administration was deeply criticized for the Iraq war which was considered just a big money grab for friends and family.
Or consider JFK, which is now rated as one of the best US presidents and his actual legacy.
I am Italian, and people are now saying "you know Berlusconi was bad, but at least he had some business knowledge and charisma, compared to the idiots today".
Just give it ten years and people will say that Boris Johnson was pretty honest compared to these guys..
Newspapers and TV were much more limited and gated. I remember having no access to cable, and thus only 3 TV channels, and two "national" newspapers available easily.
So news was textual, and the TV news was only on at 7am, 6pm, 11pm.
Then came the rise of cable news, and 24 hours news. And they needed to have more news to fill the gaps.
So people turning molehills into mountains is a thing, misconstrued interpretation of actions, unproven allegations, and more is now far more common. And before a thing would vanish quickly from the news, but with 24 hour networks they would come back to it for months.
This took time to develop, so the 90s 24 hr news networks weren't like this instantly. They evolved into this.
Then came the internet. Twitter, facebook, etc. Now more news was needed.
From what I can see, this is a large part of the change.
And as an aside, quite literally "enemies of democracy" work to amplify this. And it's so easy to do.
Pick the nuttiest nut, the least tolerant of boneheads, and donate to their foundation or cause.
The nut doesn't need to even know, they are the ultimate "useful idiot", feed them and they grow into an influential nut.
Nation-states don't need to use bots, they can just donate to causes which cause the most internal friction. Then these characters run around, pointing out every flaw.
Indeed - to me it seems there are politicians, politicians using populism, populists becoming politicians, and the new class: populists milking politics. That is, populists without political goals entering politics and finding fertile soil.
Admittedly, Boris J. is more of a populist politician that keeps dialing up the populism and down the politics until it's pure populism, while Donald T. is more of a narcissist that took the "normal" path to that point.
Comments
I’m not sure that’s true? There are certainly people complaining about politicians from every era, but specifically shameless grifters? In similar volume to today?
For instance, you can find no end of people who utterly despise Margaret Thatcher and think that she’s the worst thing to ever happen to the UK. But as far as I am aware, even the people who hate her tend to think that she genuinely believed in what she was doing. The idea that she was wrecking the country for her own personal gain isn’t a mainstream belief is it?
Now contrast that with somebody like Boris Johnson. A politician who is hated in similar volume to Thatcher. But you can’t say that the accusations levelled at Johnson are anything at all alike to those Thatcher received, can you?
The same goes for American politics. Take a look at the criticisms directed at Trump compared with those directed at either Bush. There is a qualitative difference.
I don't know, I was little when Thatcher was around and not British, but I do remember her being criticized for stuff like "Margaret Thatcher had a deal with Rupert Murdoch to get elected in exchange for granting him more media control".
The Bush administration was deeply criticized for the Iraq war which was considered just a big money grab for friends and family.
Or consider JFK, which is now rated as one of the best US presidents and his actual legacy.
I am Italian, and people are now saying "you know Berlusconi was bad, but at least he had some business knowledge and charisma, compared to the idiots today".
Just give it ten years and people will say that Boris Johnson was pretty honest compared to these guys..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/201...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/jfk-accomplished-lit...
One thing though, one difference. The media.
Newspapers and TV were much more limited and gated. I remember having no access to cable, and thus only 3 TV channels, and two "national" newspapers available easily.
So news was textual, and the TV news was only on at 7am, 6pm, 11pm.
Then came the rise of cable news, and 24 hours news. And they needed to have more news to fill the gaps.
So people turning molehills into mountains is a thing, misconstrued interpretation of actions, unproven allegations, and more is now far more common. And before a thing would vanish quickly from the news, but with 24 hour networks they would come back to it for months.
This took time to develop, so the 90s 24 hr news networks weren't like this instantly. They evolved into this.
Then came the internet. Twitter, facebook, etc. Now more news was needed.
From what I can see, this is a large part of the change.
And as an aside, quite literally "enemies of democracy" work to amplify this. And it's so easy to do.
Pick the nuttiest nut, the least tolerant of boneheads, and donate to their foundation or cause.
The nut doesn't need to even know, they are the ultimate "useful idiot", feed them and they grow into an influential nut.
Nation-states don't need to use bots, they can just donate to causes which cause the most internal friction. Then these characters run around, pointing out every flaw.
Indeed - to me it seems there are politicians, politicians using populism, populists becoming politicians, and the new class: populists milking politics. That is, populists without political goals entering politics and finding fertile soil.
Admittedly, Boris J. is more of a populist politician that keeps dialing up the populism and down the politics until it's pure populism, while Donald T. is more of a narcissist that took the "normal" path to that point.
grift seems to wax and wane with the seasons. It was certainly complained about at equivalent levels to today during the Grant administration.