Hi Namaan,

I am not sure what your question or issue is.

I expect being a politician is a high & lonely noble calling, & compensation is merely a necessary "detail" to be used for the sole purpose of furthering the altruistic objectives of peace, order & good governance. Considering all the hard work and sacrifice they endure, their pittance is well-earned.
*tongue very firmly in cheek*

Jim, Actually I am attempting to figure out just who or what the Harper Government is serving.

Seemed to me that Ninjafaery has more faith in our politicians until she pointed out she has to put her tongue in her cheek in order to give praise to them.

This is not tongue in cheek.

I've known a lot of politicians over the years. In my opinion most of them DO NOT go into politics for personal gain and they're not corrupt. Many do in fact make a sacrifice both in terms of money and family life to go into politics - with job security that lasts only until the next election. Undoubtedly some do get corrupted by the system, but I believe most are honest and hard-working people who more often than not get frustrated realizing that they won't and can't make much of a difference because the "system" has a life of its own, and eventually they become an appendage to the system, not because they want to but because that's just the way it is.

Most us us (certainly me) wouldn't want to make the sacrifices involved in going into politics. The scrutiny into our personal lives, the time away from family (remember, federally, as an MP you pretty much have to be in Ottawa for huge chunks of time.) No thanks.

Having said that, I don't believe the Harper government is serving the people. It's hostage to the powers that control the system. It does little good to rail against Harper (although I do my fair share of that) because it's really the system (which is above and beyond any government's ability to control and tame).

For an illustration, read The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, and consider that one of the great enemies of that novel is "The Bank" - not the bankers, but The Bank. The Bank is in control - not only of those who owe it money and of whose land it controls, but also of the bankers. In the same way, the politicians are a part of The System. They don't control The System, The System controls them.

Thanks, Steven. I appreciate and agree with the insight that you have given me on the situation.

Anyone have any ideas as to what I can do to improve the situation that we are in?

Not really. There are almost no courageous choices among politicians meaning they are bench warmers IMO
Why aren't they leaving in droves if not for the perks? If they can hang in there for 8 years or so, they are financially set for life.
Sorry, the high-profile ones should be in jail. They waste taxpayer dollars while sleeping during House business & being "no shows". The contempt for the people who pay them is unbelievable. There are so many truly incompetent people in jobs that should be filled with educated, solid public servants. Instead you have goons looking for money to suck from social spending.

Maybe it's different at the local level.
*end of rant (for now)*

Of course they're benchwarmers. That's what I said. They end up serving the system and little more - even the high profile ones you rail against.

So with all those wonderful perks, ninjafaery, would you go into politics - or would the price of the perks be too much to pay? Serving the required time to get a pension isn't a given you know. Lots don't get re-elected, and you have to be re-elected at least once and sometimes more if elections come at fast intervals to qualify. Would you give up your privacy? Would you give up even a semblance of a normal family life? Are the "perks" really that good for someone just starting out that they outweigh all that? As I said, most politicians go into politics with good intentions, hoping to make a positive difference (although their definition of "positive" might not be the same as "yours.") Once they get there, they discover that they're an appendage of a system that won't let them go and that won't give them independence.

And as long as we rail against the people we ourselves do the system's bidding by convincing ourselves that we can fix the system by simply changing the people who serve the system.

Point taken, & I guess I'm an anomaly because I give up every weekend to work, don't have a young family & apart from "inhaling" (as did Obama), have little to hide. I would certainly be tempted by the salary, since I live at the poverty line, so I'm no example.
But if the question is just a rhetorical one, I do understand that for someone like Justin Trudeau, it would be a real sacrifice since he has very young children & a teaching career that he loves. Also I can see that seasoned politicians who have somehow stayed the course and can mentor others, even if they weren't able to hold onto power long enough to effect change.
"the System" is broken - sure. I think that brokenness is a huge mountain of ignorance, carving expedient loopholes into the existing structuresfear, complacency and nasty, out-of-control lobbying. Those who advocate change are punished by their corporate puppet masters. I wish I believed there were exceptions.

Here's what I would say in response - "The System" isn't broken. "The System" is "The System" and it does what "The System" does - it controls people and sets them against each other. Indeed, it controls people by setting them against each other.

My ministry in recent years has been very heavily influenced by a book written by a man named Charles Campbell, who teaches homiletics at the Duke Divinity School. It's called "The Word Before The Powers: An Ethic Of Preaching." As both his vocation and the title imply, the book is specifically directed to preachers, but I think it's applicable to all. He argues that we must reclaim the idea of the "principalities and powers" - not as demons or as evil spirits, but as spiritual realities that seek to control us and to undermine the work and will of God. What is the work and will of God? I think Paul sums it up in 2 Corinthians, when he says that Christ came with a ministry of reconciliation, and that this ministry is now ours. We are to oppose (peacefully, Campbell argues that preaching is a form of non-violent resistance to the principalities and powers) all that divides us into separate and competing groups or that leaves us helpless. God desires one-ness or unity among God's people. Anything that works against that unity is a spiritual force of some sort defying God. That could be religion (when one group becomes convinced that another group is going to hell simply because they're another group); it could be ideology (socialists vs. conservaives); it could be politics (one party vs another); it could be sexual identity (gay vs straight); it could be any of the "isms" that we use to identify ourselves (because if you don't support my "ism" you're against me); it's addictions (drugs, alcohol, pornography, etc.) against which we feel helpless; it's corporations that fight against unions and it's unions that fight against corporations - because it sets those in those institutions against each other; it's the bureaucracy that smothers us in red tape and renders us helpless before it; it's the Occupy concept (pitting the 99% against the 1%). Anything that is a barrier to unity is a spiritual force (a principality or power) that we are called to oppose by engaging in the ministry of reconcilation.

Paul calls us to this understanding: "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female; neither slave nor free, but all are one."

The responsibility of a follower of Christ and of Christ's church is (ideally) to build relationship; to seek to reconcile competing and opposed groups. Too often, we choose to simply demonize those with whom we disagree. So Stephen Harper becomes THE problem to be overcome rather than one who is himself oppressed and controlled and in need of the same freedom that we as followers of Christ are called to proclaim. That happens because we ourselves are, after all, subject to the principalities and powers. That's how I would explain, for example, John Calvin's argument that we are all "totally depraved." We are constantly and inevitably in the hands of the principalities and powers that seek to control us and hold us in bondage. But by God's grace we can at least see and understand our bondage and fight against it for ourselves and for others.

End of sermon.

I keep forgetting there are actual clergy here!
;)

Won't those same "principalities & powers" destroy the world if no challenge is given - if there is no dissent? I get that violence begets more violence & that viewing others with an adversarial attitude will guarantee more of the same, but in my experience, these "p&p's" are extremely opportunistic & will do serious harm if unchecked. It seems to me that anything that has been accomplished in terms of human rights has come at a cost. Wouldn't it be naive and dangerous if wrong isn't called out? Absolutely agree about reconciliation, but AWARENESS of wrong and accountability for it has to happen for the wholeness of everyone.

No argument, and I'm not saying the principalities and powers shouldn't be confronted. Will they destroy the world? I suppose the potential is there, although ultimately even the principalities and powers are subject to Christ. I don't know what the future holds, or how Christ eventually brings them under complete submission. What I'm saying that they cannot be confronted by us on worldly terms. The principalities and powers control the world. They can be (and must be) opposed by us, although we are inevitably subject to them to a greater or lesser extent. They can be defeated only by Christ.

Of course there's a cost to our resistance. One great 20th century example of non-violent resistance to the principalities and powers was Martin Luther King, Jr., who basically refused to buy into the us vs. them mentality that was so evident in the civil rights work of, say, Malcolm X. King worked to reconcile the races. He also paid a price for doing so. At the same time as he was fighting the principalities and powers in one way, though, he was subject to them in others - his problems with adultery, for example, were indicative of an addiction to sex, which his co-workers desperately covered up to "save" the movement from scandal. I recommend a biography of King by Richard Lischer.

Another example of non-violent resistance (and another price) would be Ghandi working to reconcile Hindus and Muslims in India.

I should, of course, note that the ultimate example of non-violent resistance to the principalities and powers (and to the cost of engaging in such ministry) was Christ himself. Christ understood that working in the worldly realm was ultimately pointless, and was itself a form of temptation by the principalities and powers - thus, the temptation narrative in the wilderness, when "Satan" offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world - at the price of giving up God. Christ had to empty himself and become the example of the power of non-violent resistance, and in doing so he changed the world. 

It seems to me that people go into politics for a variety of reasons.  My MP who was the object of one reference above is opposed to almost everythng that could be judged progressive.  His latest rant was against spending taxpayer's money honouing Norman Bethune.  Our Alberta MPs include a mix of people who want to make a difference and ones who want to use the system for their own ends.  The MP for our neighbouring riding managed to get $20 million for a business of his that went bankrupt a year or so later.  The MP for the riding where I used to live failed at everything else he tried until he succeeded by riding the Reform Party coattails.

As for the 'System', MPs deal with at least two systems:  the federal bureaucracy and the network of corporate interests.  The federal bureaucracy is in a dynamic relationship with the corporate network, and has been since before Confederation, but it is also influenced by the agendas of its various managers and the current elected representatives.  Both systems work hard at manipulating public opinion, and respond or react to unexpected and unwanted shifts in public opinion.

Some MPs are playing the game for personal gain; some are playing the game in an effort to do the most possible good they can in the face of their situation.

I am finding the above posts very helpful to my way of looking at things.

Bless you Rev. Steven Davis,

it's so easy to give in to the various fatalisms, cynicisms, pessimisms

Most of life is quite ordinary and works quite well...thanks for the reminder :3

Amen. Just wanted to mention that I invited a friend to read this thread. she said that Rev Davis' sermon was very provocative, and made her think about her default opinions. Had to agree.
Thanks