Too bad ‘politician’ became a dirty word

It wasn’t just the constant clamor on the social media that turned the title “politician” into a popular synonym for “conniving rascal.” Church sermons seeking out sin often use “politicians” as examples to be shunned and, at least by implication, undeserving of the votes of the honest folk in the pews.

It is a shame that such an important word in our republic has been brought so low. Of course, you can “blame it on the politicians” if you wish, but it is manifestly unfair to tar all the practitioners of the art of politics with the same brush. There is a parallel with the way “Wall Street” has become an epithet hardly suitable for polite society. Likewise the term “businessman” often has an odor of greed, and “profits” are often assumed to be excessive.

It is probably beyond anyone’s power, short of massive educational reform, to more than grouse about all this, but at least we should understand how this has helped cheapen political discourse. The adjective “politic” means prudent, wise and artful (as in reaching compromise). From that we get “politician,” someone who is a strategist, who may or may not be an office-holder and may be at times rather cunning, yet withal, honest. Our misunderstanding of their role in government today — the statesman, public-spirited, virtuous, crooked and incompetent all lumped together — helps explain much of today’s electoral frustration.

Whatever happens in Washington or Columbus needs to be seen (and reported) as democracy in action where almost no one gets his or her way and bald dishonesty should be called to account without regard to party. Whether we still have the moral foundation to recognize right and wrong and not condemn merely artful politics as sinful is a question I can’t answer. But perhaps it will help to have our politicians characterized in our discourse as good, bad or indifferent, and why they are labeled as such.

That will help the non-politicians — all the folks out here busy trying to earn an honest living — make the most effective judgments. WILLIAM H. WILD, OAKWOOD

Holding police and others to high standards

Re “Hold police officers to a high standard,” July 29: I could not agree more with Community Contributor Steven A. Joyce that police officers should be held to a high standard.

As the police (and military members) are a part of the executive branches of government at all levels, I sincerely hope Mr. Joyce means to apply no less, maybe much more, of a high standard to those they work for and report to. This high standard would apply to mayors and elected officials at county, state and federal levels.

Professions of various sorts, including medical, engineering, and journalism should likewise be held to high standards of ethical conduct. Frankly, citizens should be held to standards; some imposed from the outside — others from the inside.

As we move closer and closer to the election of the person next to hold the highest office of the land, I hope that all of us expect, assess, and then decide who has better demonstrated this ability to set and adhere to high standards? Even in the possibility of choosing the lesser of evils, I believe the choice should be clear (and made clear by those who report to our citizens). SCOTT KUHNEN, BEAVERCREEK

About the Author