‘World’s Poorest President’ Explains Why We Should Kick Rich People Out Of Politics

img

After five years in power, the man described as the “world’s most humble president” has stepped down from office in Uruguay in 2015. Jose “Pepe” Mujica, who leaves with approval ratings of nearly 70 per cent, is a real person with real advice for leading a nation.


By Roque Planas, HuffingtonPost, Waking Times (Thanks to Earth We Are One)

People who like money too much ought to be kicked out of politics, Uruguayan President José Mujica told CNN en Español in an interview posted online Wednesday.

“We invented this thing called representative democracy, where we say the majority is who decides,” Mujica said in the interview. “So it seems to me that we [heads of state] should live like the majority and not like the minority.”

Dubbed the “World’s Poorest President” in a widely circulated BBC piece from 2012, Mujica reportedly donates 90 percent of his salary to charity. Mujica’s example offers a strong contrast to the United States, where in politics the median member of Congress is worth more than $1 millionand corporations have many of the same rights as individuals when it comes to donating to political campaigns.

Null

source – indy100.independent.co.uk

“The red carpet, people who play — those things,” Mujica said, mimicking a person playing a cornet. “All those things are feudal leftovers. And the staff that surrounds the president are like the old court.”

Here Are Eight Reasons Why We Will Miss President Jose “Pepe” Mujica

Mujica explained that he didn’t have anything against rich people, per se, but he doesn’t think they do a good job representing the interests of the majority of people who aren’t rich.

Null

source – indy100.independent.co.uk

“I’m not against people who have money, who like money, who go crazy for money,” Mujica said. “But in politics we have to separate them. We have to run people who love money too much out of politics, they’re a danger in politics… People who love money should dedicate themselves to industry, to commerce, to multiply wealth. But politics is the struggle for the happiness of all.”

Asked why rich people make bad representatives of poor people, Mujica said: “They tend to view the world through their perspective, which is the perspective of money. Even when operating with good intentions, the perspective they have of the world, of life, of their decisions, is informed by wealth. If we live in a world where the majority is supposed to govern, we have to try to root our perspective in that of the majority, not the minority.”

Null

source – indy100.independent.co.uk

Mujica has become well known for rejecting the symbols of wealth. In an interview in May, he lashed out against neckties in comments on Spanish television that went viral.

“The tie is a useless rag that constrains your neck,” Mujica said during the interview. “I’m an enemy of consumerism. Because of this hyperconsumerism, we’re forgetting about fundamental things and wasting human strength on frivolities that have little to do with human happiness.”

Null

source – indy100.independent.co.uk

He lives on a small farm on the outskirts of the capital of Montevideo with his wife, Uruguayan Sen. Lucia Topolansky and their three-legged dog Manuela. He says he rejects materialism because it would rob him of the time he uses to enjoy his passions, like tending to his flower farm and working outside.

“I don’t have the hands of a president,” Mujica told CNN. “They’re kind of mangled.”

34 thoughts on “‘World’s Poorest President’ Explains Why We Should Kick Rich People Out Of Politics”

  1. If this man goes against rich people with agressivity…..he will never solve his money problems. Because then he puts too much energy into the field of lacking money.
    Also some rich people can be fine and evolutioned souls…..depends on the persona!!!

    Like

    1. This man has said that he is not against rich people, just the need to keep the rich out of politics and in industry where they can do the most good for a country

      Like

    2. I read that he is not at all against rich people, he thinks they’re great in the area of fortune building and commerce; but they cannot relate to the majority well enough to serve in the political arena.

      I completely agree with that view. In fact, I think it is very difficult for a middle class person to relate to the destitute poor, and the poor to relate to those with fairly stable homes and lives.

      Like

    3. You miss the point of his objection to rich people. They are in no way representative of the population in general. Unless you live in Monaco.!
      He is fine with people being rich.

      Liked by 1 person

    4. It is only a problem if he is trying to solve his “money problem” which he is clearly not. He has chosen to live poor, therefore, he has no problem at all🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    5. I’m pretty sure aggressivity and evolutioned are not words just FYI (and would an evolved soul not be somewhat of an oxymoron?) , and I don’t think lacking money is a field. I think Mujica says rich people are fine, but they should keep to making money, and we should keep them out of running countries, only because as we’ve seen in recent times in Australia, growth in GDP can correlate with a reduction in living standards and life satisfaction, yet all the wealthy politicians wish to do is further increase GDP. Thus if they kept to making money and politicians kept to improving quality of life things could well be better (like post WWII european socialist governance). I feel his argument is quite good, and non-damning, and that what you’ve done here is refute it with a straw man…

      Like

  2. Love his perspective! Yes it would help here in the USA. The congressmen/women are clueless to how people live here. Things like Obamacare would never come in to place if they really understood not having enough money for food. But they do not, as so they ask that people pay more and more from thin air.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Obamacare is not universal health care. It is a program of mandatory insurance. Only in a country where the government is as thoroughly owned by the corporate oligarchy would such a mess be allowed. It is better than what we had before but it is not what we need. We need a program where we’re paying for health care, not the enrichment of insurance company stockholders and big pharma.
      I imagine Mr. Mujica would agree.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Remove the Middle men/women living off of sick peoples. Insurance is good for car, homes but not health. If we supported our helath care industry directly, we would have the best in the world.

        Like

  3. Uruguay is still a third world country. His complacency and disgust of wealth will mean that the people who voted for him as ‘one of us’ will keep them there for generations to come. He should recognise that the happiness of a nation is tied directly to the wealth of it. As much as they try and paint a picture of him being this twee person tending to his flower garden, it really translates as not having things such as medical technologies that can save lives, not having great sanitation, not having the means of disaster prevention, not having the resources to deal with gangs and crime properly, that people not being able to afford more than one pair of trousers, there being limited jobs and little industry to enable people to raise out of their situation, that people do not have the extra resources to pay for goods and services that can build a strong economy. When Uruguay is a world super power with a high or even decent standard of living, then he can profess that humble politics work, as it is, he is a despot of inaction.

    Like

  4. There will always be a conflict of interest between a person who are both involve in business and politics! He will always give favor on his side, twist if necessary in order to get the contract and use goverment resources for self gain and benefits.

    Like

  5. I think he holds a very good point. In the end, everything that a person perceives is what makes up their world. A person will only address problems that they see or hear, regardless of the source. Disregarding the reliability of the sources that help give awareness to the aforementioned hypothetical problems, a person will only, again, address problems that they believe are problems. Issues that get in the way of progress, one way or another. And in that, the point has been made that those who live in wealth and are sheltered from the worst that the world has to offer (or even the moderately terrible) are incapable of truly empathizing and therefore connecting on a human level with those who had not been brought up within a similar environment and had been stricken with worse problems. One might argue that being able to relate to problems is not necessarily a mandatory aspect to have as a person, and that holds its own merit. Not being able to relate to a problem does not make one a bad person, nor does it hinder their capability to do something.

    But I’m pretty sure it’s at least a bit harder to help a person in need when you don’t feel the real urge to help someone out of their problems.

    “The World’s Poorest President” is not a kind title, and I don’t think the people who placed it up there expected it to be a kind title. It’s an indication of the fact that whoever the title belongs to is aware of this fact and is either proud of it or is not afraid to let people know this. It’s not a direct implication that he is humble. It is not a direct statement of any sort apart from the fact that he is poor. But he is clearly honest and he can pinpoint the issues that others cannot because his perspective is different from others.

    I’m pretty sure I’ve gone off on a tangent, forgive me, but if you’ve read thus far, allow me to get back to the point.

    The government’s task is to shelter and assist people in times of need, and to watch over them as well as provide law and order. People may argue against this definition of mine, so let me state that this is mostly my opinion. Having said that, it can be difficult to understand what is most important when the people in charge do not fully understand the people that are afflicted with the issues they may be presented with. What does it matter that they have $20,000,000? If they don’t know how to use it, they might as well burn it and flush the ashes down a public urinal. If you’re supposed to help someone, you help them. But sometimes, helping people is not the highest priority anymore and it becomes an advertisement for good reputation or some sort of business that will somehow give some people profit.

    But people shouldn’t help other people for the sole purpose of profit. That’s not the point of helping others, and it insults and demeans the concept of stewardship and generosity if one were to sully it with nothing but ideas of making money. I’m not saying that there are people that do this, but I make the point with the aim to establish my opinion of the ideal. And in this regard, I think that those who cannot understand the problems of the poor due to being rich all throughout their lives cannot be of as much help as those who have been poor once. And it’s not so much as a complete inability to understand as it is an emotional, human thing. And I think a human side is important to exhibit.

    Like

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s