3 ms·

I think what people mean when they say everything is political is that the actions of our politics shapes just about every aspect our lives. You might think tha

I think what people mean when they say everything is political is that the actions of our politics shapes just about every aspect our lives. You might think that driving to a restaurant to buy a meal isn’t political, but everything about is the result of decisions of voters, politicians, and bureaucrats. How smooth the drive is dependent on how much money your city allocated tax money for road maintenance and how city planners decided to lay out your area. The laws and regulations, and the competence of the enforcement, on safety effect your chance of getting sick. The laws on tax burdens, labor laws, minimum wage laws, trade agreements, etc. factor into the price of your meal. Your level of disposable income to go buy meals is effected by those labor laws, wage laws, cost or rent or a mortgage (which itself is effected by city planning of what types of space can be built where), and on and on. The point of “everything is political” is to snap people out of the mistaken idea that politics is just abortion, voting, gun rights, and tax loopholes.

raxxorrax 6y ago
Partly true. On the other hand I think it is a common mistake to attribute economic success to politics. Sure, they lay the framework, but that doesn't mean they are responsible for success or failure. Of course politicians like to claim it anyway. > The point of “everything is political” is to snap people out [...] Oh, wow. That can make sense, but I had a complete different interpretation. I understood it as prompt to reflect on everything you do with an examination if it furthers partisan goals.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Yes - I think it's absolutely necessary to distinguish between "political", and "partisan". Not everything has to be partisan, and jamming everything into the two-party framework has a destructive Procrustean effect that leads to people making all kinds of increasingly stupid claims.
- 542354234235 6y ago
  > On the other hand I think it is a common mistake to attribute economic success to politics. Sure, they lay the framework, but that doesn't mean they are responsible for success or failure. I agree that it is a common mistake. It is difficult to draw direct lines to individual ups and downs to policies and that trying to do that is usually a tool used to swing voters more than what is actually happening. But I think it can’t be overstated the effect political decisions have, in the aggregate, of shaping the economic situation. Internally, look at the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, and the resulting construction of 50,000ish miles of highway over the next 2 decades. While it is a bit harder to draw a direct line from all that to the rapid growth of Walmart and their newfound ability to transport large amounts of goods faster and to more places than rail, it is easy to say that that political decision had a profound effect on how the country operated over the last 60 years. The country would look very different in almost every facet had that not happened. Externally, look at the trade agreements and foreign policy decision in the post WWII cold war era. If the US had not decided to embrace Japan as a trading partner and had not imposed strict controls on their post WWII government on military spending, the money from the Marshal Plan, the Japanese government’s decision to rebuild the economy through the central planning of the MITI, would they have exploded into the technological powerhouse they became? Maybe, but I can’t imagine it would have looked anything like what they did end up with. > I had a complete different interpretation. I understood it as prompt to reflect on everything you do with an examination if it furthers partisan goals. I think it is both. To snap you out of the idea that politics is just those big talking point issues that politicians and voters focus on (or that politicians convince voters to focus on). That it is a lot of everyday things that you may rarely think about being connected to “politics” and partisan actions.

raxxorrax 6y ago

Partly true. On the other hand I think it is a common mistake to attribute economic success to politics. Sure, they lay the framework, but that doesn't mean they are responsible for success or failure. Of course politicians like to claim it anyway. > The point of “everything is political” is to snap people out [...] Oh, wow. That can make sense, but I had a complete different interpretation. I understood it as prompt to reflect on everything you do with an examination if it furthers partisan goals.

pjc50 6y ago
Yes - I think it's absolutely necessary to distinguish between "political", and "partisan". Not everything has to be partisan, and jamming everything into the two-party framework has a destructive Procrustean effect that leads to people making all kinds of increasingly stupid claims.
542354234235 6y ago
> On the other hand I think it is a common mistake to attribute economic success to politics. Sure, they lay the framework, but that doesn't mean they are responsible for success or failure. I agree that it is a common mistake. It is difficult to draw direct lines to individual ups and downs to policies and that trying to do that is usually a tool used to swing voters more than what is actually happening. But I think it can’t be overstated the effect political decisions have, in the aggregate, of shaping the economic situation. Internally, look at the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, and the resulting construction of 50,000ish miles of highway over the next 2 decades. While it is a bit harder to draw a direct line from all that to the rapid growth of Walmart and their newfound ability to transport large amounts of goods faster and to more places than rail, it is easy to say that that political decision had a profound effect on how the country operated over the last 60 years. The country would look very different in almost every facet had that not happened. Externally, look at the trade agreements and foreign policy decision in the post WWII cold war era. If the US had not decided to embrace Japan as a trading partner and had not imposed strict controls on their post WWII government on military spending, the money from the Marshal Plan, the Japanese government’s decision to rebuild the economy through the central planning of the MITI, would they have exploded into the technological powerhouse they became? Maybe, but I can’t imagine it would have looked anything like what they did end up with. > I had a complete different interpretation. I understood it as prompt to reflect on everything you do with an examination if it furthers partisan goals. I think it is both. To snap you out of the idea that politics is just those big talking point issues that politicians and voters focus on (or that politicians convince voters to focus on). That it is a lot of everyday things that you may rarely think about being connected to “politics” and partisan actions.