As long as there is no accountability for politicians, we will always have at least as much time as the next guy plans to stay in power.

▲

pibaker 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Hard to blame this on politicians when raising gas prices is one of the most reliable ways of making voters mad.

	▲	jvandonsel 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well, when the U.S. president calls it a China Hoax, I think it’s pretty easy to blame them.

▲

_petronius 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are more types of politics that national and international. Local, state/provincal, city, etc. The close it is to home the more you'll see the effects, and the more power you'll have. And the more directly the electorate can keep people accountable. But I think it's really throwing the baby out with the bathwater to declare that accountability is impossible, therefore there is no point in enagaging.

▲

fzeroracer 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Politicians can only be held accountable as long as their base is willing to hold them to account. And unfortunately the old and wealthy have practiced the maximal mantra of FYGM. The degree with which not only do they hoard wealth but do everything in their power to ensure the old ways they made their wealth stay empowered tilts politics heavily.

▲

HEmanZ 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you live in a western democracy your politicians are held very accountable to the opinion and will of the people who vote. They are not kings or inherited aristocracy, they do what the people want (roughly) or get voted out.

The people who vote by-and-large don't believe climate change is real, don't believe it is serious, or are not willing to tolerate the level of discomfort necessary to solve the problem.

At least in my country, politician's hands are completely utterly tied from fighting climate change, because if they do something serious enough to actually matter they will immediately be voted out of office and whatever they did rolled back.

▲

talon8635 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Here in America we love to blame the politicians (they do indeed suck). All the while voter turnout is a complete joke. Perhaps this is actually helpful, because we are rife with various subcultures that openly celebrate ignorance, so, yeah. Blame the shitty politicians, speak not of the ignorant and unbothered masses.

	▲	atmavatar 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> All the while voter turnout is a complete joke. To be fair, the US electoral system is designed to discourage or outright disenfranchise most voters: * First-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections ensure that anyone who isn't living in a swing state/district may as well not bother. * Heavy gerrymandering exacerbates this effect. * Voter suppression tactics like attacking mail-in ballots and closing voting locations makes it more difficult for those people who still want to vote. Note that Voter ID laws are included in this because there still live today people who were denied birth certificates due to segregation-era hospitals refusing non-white mothers delivery care. * Holding elections on non-holiday weekdays makes it harder for those living paycheck-to-paycheck and working hourly jobs, though this is blunted somewhat by states which allow early voting.

▲

TheOtherHobbes 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you live in a Western democracy your politicians are very accountable to media owners and corporate donors. Voters are a very long way down the influence list, because media owners and corporate donors have sophisticated and very expensive - but high ROI - ways to shape voter opinion.

Some are simple censorship - like X and FB throttling the reach of unwanted content and promoting the reach of the opposite.

Others appear believably organic.

The obvious ones are crude, but they still work on huge swathes of the population.

The first step to recovery is to accept that this is how the system really works, and the idea that voters pick leaders based on a rational consideration of their record and potential benefits is absolute fantasy.

	▲	jltsiren 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's mostly a feature of elections with single-member districts or other winner-take-all mechanisms. Every successful politician must have a wide coalition behind them, and marginal groups that could back either major candidate determine the winner. Proportional elections have different dynamics, especially if elected candidates are determined by personal votes (and not by predetermined ranks on the party list). A successful politician mostly needs to find a niche and maintain their visibility and support within that niche.

▲

dgellow 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And companies