Congress

Congressional Word Cloud: Wow, People Really Do Not Like Our Legislative Body

|

A word cloud on what the public thinks of Congress:

I like the little red "not-good" at the bottom

Note that the word cloud responses, gathered by Pew Reseach Center for the People and the Press, are from just before the House voted on health care.

Of those offering a response, 86 percent said something negative while just 4 percent gave a positive one-word description.

Of course, that won't stop the overwhelming majority of congressmen from getting re-elected.

Advertisement

NEXT: Missing the Story

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, duh, it won’t stop them. It’s all the fault of those other guys.

    Note how a lot of the words are people clearly complaining that the Congress isn’t passing enough laws and spending enough money.

    1. If they had passed single payer, most of those words would have been positive.

      1. In your dreams you left-wing Marxist loser!

      2. > If they had passed single payer, most of those words would have been positive.

        If you mean postively even more ticked off, you’re right.

        1. No, I think a good half of those words are clearly from lefty types complaining that the health care reform isn’t passed yet and doesn’t go far enough.

  2. I will be the first to add a non-profane word that is missing: old.

  3. Is “do-nothing” one word? I think we’ve had this discussion before.

  4. Is “crap-hole” one word or two?

    1. You can substitute one word: Congress.

  5. What doe dumb fuck mean?

  6. What the fuck is a word cloud?

    1. You’re not missing anything.

    2. By the looks of it, ’60s-era pop art.

  7. Did “Gridlock” count as a negative or a positive?

    1. Or “Selfish”?

      1. Most people aren’t Objectivists. Their only definition of selfish is something like “stealing from others for personal gain”. “Rational self-interest” would start them scratching their heads.

        1. They get the self-interest part. It’s “rational” that derails all their preconceived notions.

    2. gridlock is much more positive than bi-partisan.

  8. Time to start posting those little signs in public johns: “Please flush twice; it’s a long way to Washington, D.C.”

    1. Unfortunately none of my shit reaches the Potomac.

  9. I’ve given a lot of thought about starting a 527 with the sole purpose of creating a term limit amendment for congress critters.

    Too bad I’m so f*cking lazy…

  10. You know, I’m a little disturbed that the inefficiency angle is focused on so much, rather than the power-grubbing, lying, corruptness bit.

    1. Yeah. I can’t imagine how screwed we’d be if they were zipping along.

      1. Exactly. The whole government was designed to be sluggish and inefficient.

    2. The words like “dysfunctional”, “ineffective”, “childish”, etc. were no doubt from liberals/progressives who wish the Republicans would just get out of the way. This past few months has shown us that the word “Corrupt” is the most apt.

    3. Good point.

  11. “Of course, that won’t stop the overwhelming majority of congressmen from getting re-elected.”

    What does it say when you buy into a mutual fund? Something like “Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results”.

    In other words, the American electorate is not bound to statistics. Were it so, we’d still be British subjects.

    1. that is right. The incumbency market will never go down. Just like the housing market will never go down.

      1. John, you’re so close!

        Why can’t you see your way to disengagement?

        If more people stopped voting for those offices, don’t you think they’d be a little less ambitious?

        1. If more people stopped voting for those offices, don’t you think they’d be a little less ambitious?

          Um, no. They’d be a little less ambitious if they had less power, sure, but the incumbents don’t care about the view of people who are sure never to vote for either them or their opponent.

          More people stopping voting means fewer people who they have to worry about pissing off.

          Someone who absolutely will never vote for any politician (unless they’re 100% perfect, which means the same thing in reality) is just as powerless as someone who will vote for the same team no matter what.

          Are you proposing that, e.g., MPs in the days of pocket and rotten boroughs were less ambitious? Are Supreme Court justices less ambitious because fewer people vote for them (and only once)?

        2. Why can’t you see your way to disengagement?

          Total disengagement is equally foolish as supporting one team no matter what.

          1. “They’d be a little less ambitious if they had less power, sure, but the incumbents don’t care about the view of people who are sure never to vote for either them or their opponent.”

            The incumbents aren’t worried about who you vote for. Nobody’s gunning even for the swing vote!

            The incumbents aren’t worried about the swing vote, and they’re not trying to pull registered voters from the other party either…

            They’re just worried about their own turnout.

            In simple terms, they don’t care who you vote for–they’re just afraid you’re not going to vote.

            And I will continue to argue that the more people who participate in any given election, the more powerful those offices are.

            Nobody wants to stick their neck out when participation is relatively low, or more so, when participation is low, they’re not willing to try to do as much.

            It really is as simple as that.

            And starving the beast certainly makes more sense than massive participation preceding politicians who vote themselves less power, doesn’t it?

            Don’t you judge the legitimacy of leaders in other countries to some extent by the percentage of people who participated in the election?

            Why not extend that logic to American elections?

            Isn’t the libertarian premise essentially that most government offices in this country are illegitimate? Then why shouldn’t we discourage people from lending these incumbent monsters legitimacy with their votes?

            1. The incumbents aren’t worried about who you vote for. Nobody’s gunning even for the swing vote!

              Yes they are. The swing vote, however, clearly supported Obama and the Democrats at the last general election. The swing vote clearly supported Scott Brown in his recent election.

              They’re just worried about their own turnout.

              In simple terms, they don’t care who you vote for–they’re just afraid you’re not going to vote.

              That’s ridiculous. They certainly do care who you vote for. They are indeed ecstatic if you’re a leaner against them and don’t vote, and they do try very hard to raise the turnout among their own groups.

              But, if people take your advice and the “swing voters” don’t vote, then that simply encourages politicians to even more pay attention to their core.

              Don’t you judge the legitimacy of leaders in other countries to some extent by the percentage of people who participated in the election?

              Yes, if the country has compulsory voting, I think that the elected officials are less legitimate because ignorant people voted. Also, if turnout is very high in a country, I worry for that country because that probably means that the stakes involved in politics are far too high. I don’t think that either of those are what you meant.

              I do think that leaders in countries with absurd margins are less legitimate. But that and a nickel will buy you a big cup of jack squat. Plenty of dictators don’t have “legitimacy” by that standard. Does that reduce their power?

            2. And I will continue to argue that the more people who participate in any given election, the more powerful those offices are.

              Don’t you judge the legitimacy of leaders in other countries to some extent by the percentage of people who participated in the election?

              Legitimacy is one thing, but does it follow at all that basically viewed as illegitimate leaders don’t have power? Don’t dictators have plenty of power? Has boycotting an election ever worked?

              Doesn’t the EU continue to get power, despite being viewed as illegitimate?

            3. And I will continue to argue that the more people who participate in any given election, the more powerful those offices are.

              So, you’re arguing that the historic trend of declining voter participation has led to the Presidency being less powerful over the years? Or that the Senators of more populous states automatically have more power?

            4. You’re arguing that Pitt the Elder couldn’t have been ambitious, because he represented a rotten borough?

              You have causation backwards.

  12. Are you serious?

  13. Odd, I don’t see “EVIL”.

    1. I’m dead. Leave me the fuck out of this.

      1. Did you see me?

  14. For most of the American public, pork is evil…unless it’s coming to MY town. Hell, my Rep once said something to the effect that any member of congress who doesn’t try to bring home all the pork he can isn’t doing his job.

    Me? I say he’s the only one. But that’s just me.

    1. “For most of the American public, pork is evil…unless it’s coming to MY town”

      That’s why the Nebraska kick-back played so well in Ben Nelson’s state.

      1. Of course it did. It’s the other 49 states that got pissed about it.

  15. Disconnected, awful, self-aggrandizing, power-hungry, cheats, hacks, single-minded, egotistical, condescending, illogical, fallacious, thoughtless, foolish, backstabbing, turncoats, salespeople, deceptive, ignorant, hypocritical, sellouts, short-sighted…

  16. Just a few missing words that come to mind:

    Disconnected, awful, self-aggrandizing, power-hungry, cheats, hacks, single-minded, egotistical, condescending, illogical, fallacious, thoughtless, foolish, backstabbing, turncoats, salespeople, deceptive, ignorant, hypocritical, sellouts, short-sighted…

  17. Just a few missing words that come to mind:

    Disconnected (from the populace), awful, self-aggrandizing, power-hungry, cheats, hacks, single-minded, egotistical, condescending (to both the populace and their opponents), illogical, fallacious, thoughtless, foolish, backstabbing, turncoats, salespeople (all they truly are, but in a glorified sense), deceptive, hypocritical, sellouts, short-sighted…

    1. Botox.

  18. How I WISH they were dysfunctional.

  19. I’m glad to see “clowns” represented in there. Though I’d like to see “clusterfuck”.

    1. Those clowns in Congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns.

      1. Hot Dog! We have a weiner!

  20. Except for “corrupt,” the big ones are all cries for rule. And only utter shits say “dysfunctional” unironically. We’re boned.

  21. Was “socialist” classified as a good or bad?

  22. Was Socialist classified as good or bad?

    This sentence, right here….Yes, this one, has been added to get the previous one through the spam filter. Try my anonymity software at http://www.anonguyscrap.com

  23. Was socialist classified as a good or bad comment?

    This sentence, right here….Yes, this one, has been added to get the previous one through the spam filter.

  24. Fucking filter.

  25. Of course, that won’t stop the overwhelming majority of congressmen from getting re-elected

    Crooked is only a bad thing when you’re not getting a piece of the action.

  26. From now on, I’m voting the straight “Evil Clown” ticket.

    1. Enough with the bipartisanship already, P.

    2. So you’ll be voting “all of the above” then?

      1. “Well I don’t know…Can you afford Carlozo?”

        1. smartass

          1. Do you mock the Clown Society?!

  27. When I write a letter, should it begin with “Dear Senator Fuckface”, or would that be redundant?

    1. The latter.

  28. Libertarian Guy-

    “Dear Stupid” works.

  29. Gee really? Go figure! LOL

    Lou
    http://www.anon-web.hitart.com

  30. Disgusting; sad.

  31. I will smite this word cloud with mighty bolts. I will batter it with hail. To finish it off, I will send in tornadoes.

  32. Why isn’t “cawksackahs” in that pictah?

    1. Because “cocksucker” is a gay smear. Now up against the Prius, hatemonger.

    2. Perhaps the poll wasn’t limited to Boston? Besides, Kennedy is dead.

  33. I’m pretty sure they doctored those results. The closest thing to profanity I see is “Bull”. Where’s “assholes”, “cunts”, “cocksuckers”, “motherfuckers”, “shitbags”, “douchelords”, etc. I defy you to tell me that out of close to 800 people, none of them used anything more colorful than bull-blank-blank-blank-blank.

    1. I thought “sucks” was the closest to profanity there.

    2. You forgot “Penis Sheaths”.

  34. We should do all we can to make sure that when the eventual word cloud for Reason Hit’n’Run occurs, the most prominent phrase listed will be, ‘ass-to-ass’.

    1. Asses to asses, funk to funky
      We know Major Tom’s a junkie
      Strung out in heavens high
      Hitting an all time low

  35. Terrance: You’re such a pig-fucker, Phillip!

    Phillip: Terrance, why would you call me a pig-fucker?

    Terrance: Well, let’s see. First of all, you fuck pigs.

    Phillip: Oh yeah!

  36. The missing word I wish were there: Irrelevant.

  37. Of course, that won’t stop the overwhelming majority of congressmen from getting re-elected.

    You mean congressmen who run for reelection.

    If you look at all of them including the who will lose and know they will lose so they drop out the number drops significantly.

  38. truth,,,,obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led.”
    “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.”
    “All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it.”
    “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”pelosi don’t see much future for the Americans … it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities …obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance … everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it’s half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries… Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit? The media’s justification is apparently “because it’s out there”, truth be damned. STOP THIS COMMUNIST OBAMA ,GOD HELP US ALL .THE COMMANDER ((GOD OPEN YOUR EYES)) stop the communist obama & pelosi.((open you eyes)) ,the commander

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.