4 ms·

>> The telos of the politician is -- in the strictest sense of the term -- tragic. It is his job to make hard judgement calls between equally important, but opp

>> The telos of the politician is -- in the strictest sense of the term -- tragic. It is his job to make hard judgement calls between equally important, but opposing values. I don’t really agree. A good politician is like a good manager: he empowers those under him by making sure they have the resources they need, removes the obstacles in front of them, and shields them from outside interference. It is not his job to make bold decisions on his own and without any input.

omginternets 6y ago
Yes, you’ve just summarized the ethos of “management politics”. My contention is that this reasoning is part of what got us into this mess to begin with. He should be removing obstacles on the path to what? Conspicuously absent from your view of politics is any notion of policy or project. What are we even hoping to achieve? This is like driving aimlessly whilst avoiding potholes. It’s hardly thriving.
- TrispusAttucks 6y ago
  Eyes on their feet, watching where they step, oblivious that they're heading, directly towards a cliff!
earthboundkid 6y ago
I think that is true at many levels of government, but at the top level, the job of the leader is to set direction and choose the people below to implement it. It’s different than following someone else’s lead. You probably shouldn’t make “bold decisions” per se, but you should set the values that enable bold decision making by the lower downs.
- omginternets 6y ago
  >you should set the values that enable bold decision making by the lower downs. This take is indistinguishable from management politics. Without a policy at the top: 1. The "lower downs" all make "bold decisions" in different directions, resulting in administrative paralysis. 2. Voters aren't making meaningful choices. They're literally voting for someone who will enable everyone to do whatever. This is a recipe for political chaos. More importantly, it's the story that's been playing out for the past 40 years, with the results we all know. I can relate to the distrust of central planning to some extent -- it is certainly something that warrants caution -- but those risks are best addressed through institutional checks and balances, not by having the political class abandon its duties altogether! The irony is that in an effort to avoid tyranny/autocracy, we've created the kind of political vacuum that incubates the very outcome we feared.
  - earthboundkid 6y ago
    I don’t think we disagree. Maybe being concrete would help. Joe Biden is not qualified to make medical judgments about COVID-19 or vaccines. But he absolutely should decide eg: is better to be fast and risky or slow and safe with new vaccines? Should we prioritize reopening or lowering COVID mortality (bearing in mind being closed causes other mortality, eg suicide)? Can we trust an education/information strategy for masking or do we need a punitive approach to make people participate? These trade offs are all among two good choices that are also two bad choices (“tragic”). For things that are unilaterally good (put more vaccines in fancy syringes! Speed vaccines! Make a freaking website for vaccines already!) underlings ought to be able to do it without Joe telling them so (but he can intervene if they fail).
    - omginternets 6y ago
      Ah, I think I see your point now: the essential qualities of a democratic leader are both (1) to grapple with conflicting values and make judgement calls and (2) to facilitate the work of domain experts. Or, in your words: "set the direction" and "choose the people to implement it". I somehow overlooked the first part of your post. I agree that we agree. Sorry for the mixup :)
Negitivefrags 6y ago
This is certainly the in vogue way that good management is represented, but in my experience, great things are not created this way. Great things are created when an individual person can impose their strong vision for a final product on a team.
- Loughla 6y ago
  This is 100% the opposite of my experience. What I've noticed from effective management - the manager/leader works with the team to set a common goal at the outset. The goal needs to be as concrete as possible, and should be changed or reviewed regularly. It helps if your goals aren't necessarily sales driven, but service driven. Then the manager works with outside agencies to either provide appropriate resources, or remove obstacles while the team does the actual work toward their common goal. Often, okay things are created when an individual imposes their will on the group. Occasionally, great things are created. BUT, they are not maintained or sustained past the exit of that one person from the company. When they leave, the house of cards falls, because no one is invested in the project outside of avoiding the ire of that one strong personality. Again, in my experience, when the entire group is dedicated to a vision and a common goal, the outcome is much, much better. A side effect is that everyone is happier and more invested in their work. AND, the project lives past the exit of one, two, or even a majority of the team. Because community and culture matter, really.
  - omginternets 6y ago
    You are drawing from experience in business. This is politics. The idea that the two are somehow the same is a very questionable (not to mention recent, circa 1980) idea.
    - Loughla 6y ago
      That is a fair statement. I hadn't taken this idea into just politics, just the more general 'leadership'.
      - 6y ago

omginternets 6y ago

Yes, you’ve just summarized the ethos of “management politics”. My contention is that this reasoning is part of what got us into this mess to begin with. He should be removing obstacles on the path to what? Conspicuously absent from your view of politics is any notion of policy or project. What are we even hoping to achieve? This is like driving aimlessly whilst avoiding potholes. It’s hardly thriving.

TrispusAttucks 6y ago
Eyes on their feet, watching where they step, oblivious that they're heading, directly towards a cliff!

earthboundkid 6y ago

I think that is true at many levels of government, but at the top level, the job of the leader is to set direction and choose the people below to implement it. It’s different than following someone else’s lead. You probably shouldn’t make “bold decisions” per se, but you should set the values that enable bold decision making by the lower downs.

omginternets 6y ago
>you should set the values that enable bold decision making by the lower downs. This take is indistinguishable from management politics. Without a policy at the top: 1. The "lower downs" all make "bold decisions" in different directions, resulting in administrative paralysis. 2. Voters aren't making meaningful choices. They're literally voting for someone who will enable everyone to do whatever. This is a recipe for political chaos. More importantly, it's the story that's been playing out for the past 40 years, with the results we all know. I can relate to the distrust of central planning to some extent -- it is certainly something that warrants caution -- but those risks are best addressed through institutional checks and balances, not by having the political class abandon its duties altogether! The irony is that in an effort to avoid tyranny/autocracy, we've created the kind of political vacuum that incubates the very outcome we feared.
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  I don’t think we disagree. Maybe being concrete would help. Joe Biden is not qualified to make medical judgments about COVID-19 or vaccines. But he absolutely should decide eg: is better to be fast and risky or slow and safe with new vaccines? Should we prioritize reopening or lowering COVID mortality (bearing in mind being closed causes other mortality, eg suicide)? Can we trust an education/information strategy for masking or do we need a punitive approach to make people participate? These trade offs are all among two good choices that are also two bad choices (“tragic”). For things that are unilaterally good (put more vaccines in fancy syringes! Speed vaccines! Make a freaking website for vaccines already!) underlings ought to be able to do it without Joe telling them so (but he can intervene if they fail).
  - omginternets 6y ago
    Ah, I think I see your point now: the essential qualities of a democratic leader are both (1) to grapple with conflicting values and make judgement calls and (2) to facilitate the work of domain experts. Or, in your words: "set the direction" and "choose the people to implement it". I somehow overlooked the first part of your post. I agree that we agree. Sorry for the mixup :)

Negitivefrags 6y ago

This is certainly the in vogue way that good management is represented, but in my experience, great things are not created this way. Great things are created when an individual person can impose their strong vision for a final product on a team.

Loughla 6y ago
This is 100% the opposite of my experience. What I've noticed from effective management - the manager/leader works with the team to set a common goal at the outset. The goal needs to be as concrete as possible, and should be changed or reviewed regularly. It helps if your goals aren't necessarily sales driven, but service driven. Then the manager works with outside agencies to either provide appropriate resources, or remove obstacles while the team does the actual work toward their common goal. Often, okay things are created when an individual imposes their will on the group. Occasionally, great things are created. BUT, they are not maintained or sustained past the exit of that one person from the company. When they leave, the house of cards falls, because no one is invested in the project outside of avoiding the ire of that one strong personality. Again, in my experience, when the entire group is dedicated to a vision and a common goal, the outcome is much, much better. A side effect is that everyone is happier and more invested in their work. AND, the project lives past the exit of one, two, or even a majority of the team. Because community and culture matter, really.
- omginternets 6y ago
  You are drawing from experience in business. This is politics. The idea that the two are somehow the same is a very questionable (not to mention recent, circa 1980) idea.
  - Loughla 6y ago
    That is a fair statement. I hadn't taken this idea into just politics, just the more general 'leadership'.
    - 6y ago