4 ms·

And it will also be wrong. > 20 years from now an impeccably researched book will come out that makes a strong case that what we believed about political event

And it will also be wrong. > 20 years from now an impeccably researched book will come out that makes a strong case that what we believed about political events today was all wrong and really it was something different The one good thing about politics is that the motives are crystal clear, politicians want to stay in power first, and only secondarily want to improve things. Once you know this, everything makes sense. Even if we never find out what "really" happened

bilbo0s 3y ago
politicians want to stay in power first, and only secondarily want to improve things. In all honesty, many don't even want to improve things. Most people with power, love power. It's contrary to their nature to change a system that confers power to themselves. That's not just in your own, but in any nation, the people in power will be resistant to change.
PaulHoule 3y ago
That’s as close as you will get to a master narrative but it isn’t all of it. Politicians aren’t always sure what will win for them, often face a menu of unappetizing choices and have other motivations too. (Quite a few of the better Republicans have quit in disgust in the last decade: I watched the pope speak in front of congress flanked by Joe Biden, then VP and John Boehner, then House Speaker when the pope obliquely said they should start behaving like adults and then Boehner quit a few days later and got into the cannabis business.) I was an elected member of the state committee of the Green Party of New York and found myself arguing against a course of action that I emotionally agreed with, thought was a tactical mistake, and that my constituents were (it turns out fatally) divided about. It was a strategic disaster in the end.
- paulsutter 3y ago
  You're right, I should have added that politics is also extremely difficult and filled with unpalatable choices. Each of the politicians I have met are intelligent, caring people with a clear grasp of the issues. And then you see what they do, and you wonder, what the...
Karellen 3y ago
> politicians want to stay in power first, and only secondarily want to improve things. The politicians who want to be in power first, and only secondarily want to improve things, tend to be the politicians in power. Politicians who want to improve things first do exist, but they tend not to achieve power, because power is not their goal, and they are out-maneuvered by the first type. Notably, politicians who want to improve things are easily side-tracked by suggesting that their proposed policy is not the best way to improve things, and that some other way would be better. This explains to some degree a lot of infighting on the left, because many do want to genuinely help, but it's never 100% clear what the best way to help is. It also explains why the right can put aside major differences of opinion (2A is important to fight the government who can't be trusted, but support the troops and arm the police!) to achieve power, because acquiring and maintaining power is more important than exactly what you plan to do with it.
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
  >2A is important to fight the government who can't be trusted, but support the troops and arm the police! I fail to see the contradiction here. 2A proponents would say that 2A is there for when the government goes wrong, or "when in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another." At all other times, however, it would be up to the government to enforce the law and protect the people. Destroying the state is a different ideology. (To be clear, the last few wars may not have been about protecting the people. But that the US has not been attacked since Pearl Harbor may be a result of the investment made in "defence" since then, as well as favourable borders ect.) In any case 'both sides' have people who people who actualy care about society. And there are people on the left who may simply want power, and complex people who seem to be a bit of both (for example perhaps Lyndon Johnson depending on how you see him).

bilbo0s 3y ago

politicians want to stay in power first, and only secondarily want to improve things. In all honesty, many don't even want to improve things. Most people with power, love power. It's contrary to their nature to change a system that confers power to themselves. That's not just in your own, but in any nation, the people in power will be resistant to change.

PaulHoule 3y ago

That’s as close as you will get to a master narrative but it isn’t all of it. Politicians aren’t always sure what will win for them, often face a menu of unappetizing choices and have other motivations too. (Quite a few of the better Republicans have quit in disgust in the last decade: I watched the pope speak in front of congress flanked by Joe Biden, then VP and John Boehner, then House Speaker when the pope obliquely said they should start behaving like adults and then Boehner quit a few days later and got into the cannabis business.) I was an elected member of the state committee of the Green Party of New York and found myself arguing against a course of action that I emotionally agreed with, thought was a tactical mistake, and that my constituents were (it turns out fatally) divided about. It was a strategic disaster in the end.

paulsutter 3y ago
You're right, I should have added that politics is also extremely difficult and filled with unpalatable choices. Each of the politicians I have met are intelligent, caring people with a clear grasp of the issues. And then you see what they do, and you wonder, what the...

Karellen 3y ago

> politicians want to stay in power first, and only secondarily want to improve things. The politicians who want to be in power first, and only secondarily want to improve things, tend to be the politicians in power. Politicians who want to improve things first do exist, but they tend not to achieve power, because power is not their goal, and they are out-maneuvered by the first type. Notably, politicians who want to improve things are easily side-tracked by suggesting that their proposed policy is not the best way to improve things, and that some other way would be better. This explains to some degree a lot of infighting on the left, because many do want to genuinely help, but it's never 100% clear what the best way to help is. It also explains why the right can put aside major differences of opinion (2A is important to fight the government who can't be trusted, but support the troops and arm the police!) to achieve power, because acquiring and maintaining power is more important than exactly what you plan to do with it.

Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
>2A is important to fight the government who can't be trusted, but support the troops and arm the police! I fail to see the contradiction here. 2A proponents would say that 2A is there for when the government goes wrong, or "when in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another." At all other times, however, it would be up to the government to enforce the law and protect the people. Destroying the state is a different ideology. (To be clear, the last few wars may not have been about protecting the people. But that the US has not been attacked since Pearl Harbor may be a result of the investment made in "defence" since then, as well as favourable borders ect.) In any case 'both sides' have people who people who actualy care about society. And there are people on the left who may simply want power, and complex people who seem to be a bit of both (for example perhaps Lyndon Johnson depending on how you see him).