How to become popular in politics?

The Parliament of Finland
(Picture I)

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/p/how-to-become-popular-in-politics.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Many people might think, that this is the re-take of another text, what I wrote yesterday, but the reason, why somebody becomes popular in the political field is the very good question, and that's why I write it here. First, the person, who wants to be popular, must make speeches about the things, what people want to hear. And sometimes that is far away from realistic opportunities, what the state can give to the voters. There are always limits, what the state can pay because the national economy would and property of the state give limits, for what the government can buy, and what kind of taxes it must take from people. If there would be big payments, must the state increase level of taxes to fix the budgets.

Also, friends in the press and media would help the politician to get the opinions known to the large group of people. So politicians must make good influence about themselves for media, that the reporters would say good worlds for their program. And praise the opportunities, what the politician would give to the field of politics. This is the very good idea to become popular in every field, and of course, the good way to see, what makes people interested and like about the politician, is use decibel meter, and meter the time of the applause after speaking.

The feeling at the front of the speaker is the very good meter for the political leader or person who wants to become the political leader, that people want to hear the speeches of that person. And one of the worst mistakes is made in this field because if somebody offers something from some organization, should this person also mention, own position in that system.


Uniformed organizations are of course the very good field when something wants to promise, but there is one little problem with them. There is so little number of police officers and professional military men in the western democracies, that their votes would not raise any person in the position of prime minister. But those kinds of groups are the good field to give permissions because they seem like big and homogeneous groups. But the problem is those people afraid uniforms, and if the politician promises very much for those actors, would that cause that normal people would not give votes to that politician, what seems like some totalitarian.


And this is one reason, why the Second World War veterans got so much positive publicity, and many permissions were given straight to them. They were the big group of people, who have the same background. And if those big groups of people like some political movement or party, that brings votes for politicians. This is the mathematics of democracy. If somebody wants to get the workplace in the parliament, this person must get popularity from the people, that have only one vote to give. And only the vote, what is dropped in the box means in the election. The politicians want to please the major part of the electors, and if they want votes for new political movement, they must promise something different than old-school political leaders. And of course, they must get publicity.


That's why every political movement is very radical when it begins the work. Radicalism brings votes, and then they would get the place in the cabinets. And new political movements can always blame old actors, that all mistakes are made by them. One thing what would bring support from media is mention that some political movement has the biggest group of members in the political field. This might be sound good, but then we must ask one question: how many members are found in the party? And at the same time ask, clear answer to the question, by using numbers. In the field of politics is a good thing to find supporters from the media, because that brings free space for political advertising.


Same time, we might ask how many members are in the average party, what acts in the country, where lives five million people, and in the parliament is ten parties. There are 17 registered parties in Finland, and this makes me ask, how many members really is in those parties. But the being biggest party in the political field is the very notable thing, and it would bring more positive writings in media because big parties can get more sure places from parliaments than small parties. The membership of big party would bring more personal good for the active member, who is the good speaker than membership in the small party.


But same way we must say, that in the big party is found many opinions and the one permission is not enough, because the votes must be collected from the larger field. And that's why there must make investigations of average persons in the voting area, and make some permissions to them, and then some permissions, what are targeted in some precisely selected areas. If there would be many families with children, they might want some services for children, and if there would be the active military reserve, would they be interested in military funding for armed forces. Those examples are very far away from together, and that's why I put them here.


They are the perfect thing for compilation, what kind of permissions must politician give in the career. And that shows, how difficult is to be the politician. Without permission is no votes, and if the permissions go for wrong persons, who don't live in the voting area, would that cause the catastrophe. That means the end of the political career if the person is the first time in the election campaign. And if the result is the flop, would the supporters go to find another politician, whose campaign they want to sponsor.

Sources:

http://vaalit.fi/fi/rekisteroidyt-puolueet

https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/kansanedustajat/eduskuntaryhmat/eduskuntaryhmarekisteri/Sivut/default.aspx


Picture I

https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w728-h425-c728x425/upload/c4/bc/58/shutterstock-150288245.jpg

What is the problem with democracy?

(Picture I)

Kimmo Huosionmaa


The problem with democracy is that the most popular person would be selected to the head of the state. And that's why Hungarian prime minister can work against rest of European Union. The most problematic thing is that if we want to use censorship against those persons, we might make them more popular than without censorship. And the thing, what makes them so popular is, that they have straight principles, how to handle things and make their nation proud. And why people would not be allowed to be proud of their nation and history? Every nation has right to be proud, but that would be very devastating, because of the nationalism have sometimes turned to militarism and totalitarianism. There have been writings that left-wing persons are working against democracy, and this is not very far away from the truth.


When we are thinking about socialistic, or "realistic socialistic" governments, they are always worked against democracy and destroyed the opposition with massive police actions. And this has been raised the hardcore militarism in the visible sign of the politics of Eastern side nations during the communist era. The problem of the relationship with those nationalist politicians, who are grown in communistic states is, that if rest of the EU would kick them off, that would give more water to their wheels because they would claim, that EU and the elite of EU would kick them of this community.


This is what some of those populists want. If the EU would tolerate and accept their behavior, that would cause the situation, that those politicians must divorce from EU by them self. They must make the first movement in this question, and of course, that would be quite embarrassing for the populists. When we are talking about the way of making decisions in EU, there would always be mentioned the word "elite", what is used in the negative or positive way, depending on the writer's relationship with power. If the writer has the positive relationship with the way to make decisions in the EU, would this person use this world as the positive way, and claim that every person, who sits in the parliament of EU, is some kind of specialist.


If the relationship with the EU is not good, the term "elite" would be used about the isolated financial groups, what are ruling the economy in this area. But when we are thinking about the way, where police would be used against the people, who protest against EU, would we face the situation, where we act like some Soviet Union, when the ally doesn't please it. And if we would use force against the persons, who protest, we would become similar than some NKVD chief, who murdered millions of people, because comrade Stalin was thought, that they were against the communistic way to think, that proletarian dictatorship was the only right way to make world socialistic paradise.


And sometimes I would think, that would we be proud if we keep EU existed with using power. This is the very tricky question because many man and woman want to be "big boss in the small country", and of course, Russia what have very much nuclear weapons is very good "police" for some nations domestic politics. And somebody, who are defending democracy have opinions, that the only right opinion about every question. And the people, who are protecting the freedom of speech have sometimes become the worst limiters of freedom of speech and publishing.

Sources:

https://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/artikkeli/kommentti-orban-on-eu-n-mutapainissa-niskan-paalla/6931134#gs.nbco7Ro

Picture I

http://www.turituri.com/wp-content/uploads/budapest-parliamentwith-reflection-in-danube-image-id-176965334-1424439725-KDcO.jpg

luonnonihmeitakaikillamausteilla.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/what-is-the-problem-with-democracy/


https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/

Some politicians have even hire persons to throw themselves with rotten tomatoes for getting the popularity

De Gaulle's Citroen after attentate
(Internet photo)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

There are the cases in the history, where political candidates have set up attentates against themselves. In some case, when the political candidate has been lost the popularity and the Gallup polls have shown decreasing interests of this person's popularity, the candidate has paid a couple of guys to burn the home or throw the rotten tomatoes to this candidate, that the speeches must not be given to the public audience.


In those situations, the candidate can prosecute the disorders in the case, that the campaign has been going wrong.  But in some cases, those setups have been very dramatic and more serious than throwing some rotten tomatoes against the political candidate. In the 1960's when the French colonies became independent some French military personnel created the organization, what is known as the OAS (Organisation de Armeé Secreté). The independence wars of the French colonies were extremely bloody, and then the wars were ended, when Algiers and Vietnam took the independence.


That organization had one purpose, get those colonies back to control of the French government, and the same time that organization took the goal of its mission to eliminate the President of France Jaques de Gaulle. The last purpose is what something suspicious because De Gaulle's military background was against the independence of the colonies of France. And somebody claimed that De Gaulle was actually the head of the OAS. Then some persons made attentate against the president in 1962, and they used very strong firepower.


In that strike, the president De Gaulle didn't get injuries. The case was waked up the question, how could those men shoot multiple shots with the automatic weapons, that there were no injuries for the targets, but they killed his motorcycle bodyguards.  In that case, somebody thought, that De Gaulle was hired those gunmen, to shoot the political parting to his head. In 1963 the man named Lee Harvey Oswald was arrest by the murder of the President of the United States John Fritzgerald Kennedy.


In that case, what was the source of the millions of the pages of conspiracy theories is one theory, what sometimes came to my mind. That theory is about the Kennedy hired Oswald to shoot the car or some persons in the car, what he using by driving thru the Dallas. The reason was to avoid the TV-discussion in his second election campaign. The person who was shot was the Lee Harvey Oswald, who has spent a couple of years in the Soviet Union and was convicted as an unstable person. If that man was shot during the operation, nobody ever saw any suspicious of Kennedy's campaign, but then Oswald misunderstood the mission and shot the president in an accident.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/citroen-helps-de-gaulle-survive-assassination-attempt