3 ms·

Many (most?) politicians were traditionally (at least partly) motivated by public service, so we perhaps should consider how to reinvigorate and reinforce that.

Many (most?) politicians were traditionally (at least partly) motivated by public service, so we perhaps should consider how to reinvigorate and reinforce that. One possibility might be to specifically improve pathways into politics from sectors that still have high levels of public service motivation - eg. the civil service, judiciary, NGOs, civil infrastructure, education. There are likely plenty of other approaches to help balance out the pure power-seekers too, so let's work out what they are and follow as many as possible rather than encouraging fatalism.

Leonard_of_Q 10d ago
> high levels of public service motivation - eg. the civil service, judiciary, NGOs, civil infrastructure, education. Many of these are mostly known for harbouring activists, not public servants. They serve a cause, not the public and as such are just as unsuitable for politics as the usual suspects.
- Timon3 10d ago
  Just because many people think they mostly harbor activists, doesn't mean that it's true. I regularly see people getting called "activists" or "ideologues" because they serve the public instead of whatever causes their detractors want to advance.
  - roryirvine 10d ago
    Yes - reflexively denigrating anyone who's not motivated by interests that align with their own as an "activist" is likely one of the reasons why politics has become degraded in the way that it has.
    - Timon3 10d ago
      Yep, same goes for "ideologue" etc. IMO such thought-terminating cliches are a mind virus: ~10-15 years ago I noticed some people frequently using them in discussions. Today, these people are largely incapable of staying calm while listening to any opposing views, no matter the topic! (EDIT: After posting, I had the idea below) My best explanation would be: just like TikTok is harmful to our attention span, thought-terminating cliches are harmful to our tolerance for complexity.
jjav 9d ago
> Many (most?) politicians were traditionally (at least partly) motivated by public service At the entry level of politics, I feel this is actually true. And having known friends and acquaintances who have gone into low/entry level political offices I know they have been clearly motivated by trying to make things better for the common citizen. So where does it go wrong? To move up the ladder you can only really do it (with very few exceptions) by having full support of one or the other party. And to gain that support you can only do it by fully aligning with the party sponsors and contributors and their selfish interests. If you're not seen as a party team player who votes in block with everyone else, you won't have the support you need to gain higher offices. So either you burn out and leave (as all my friends have) or you stay at low level political positions where you can do some good, but very little influence. That's why all the top-level politicians are so clearly thoroughly extremely corrupt, because you couldn't possibly get to that level any other way.

Leonard_of_Q 10d ago

> high levels of public service motivation - eg. the civil service, judiciary, NGOs, civil infrastructure, education. Many of these are mostly known for harbouring activists, not public servants. They serve a cause, not the public and as such are just as unsuitable for politics as the usual suspects.

Timon3 10d ago
Just because many people think they mostly harbor activists, doesn't mean that it's true. I regularly see people getting called "activists" or "ideologues" because they serve the public instead of whatever causes their detractors want to advance.
- roryirvine 10d ago
  Yes - reflexively denigrating anyone who's not motivated by interests that align with their own as an "activist" is likely one of the reasons why politics has become degraded in the way that it has.
  - Timon3 10d ago
    Yep, same goes for "ideologue" etc. IMO such thought-terminating cliches are a mind virus: ~10-15 years ago I noticed some people frequently using them in discussions. Today, these people are largely incapable of staying calm while listening to any opposing views, no matter the topic! (EDIT: After posting, I had the idea below) My best explanation would be: just like TikTok is harmful to our attention span, thought-terminating cliches are harmful to our tolerance for complexity.

jjav 9d ago

> Many (most?) politicians were traditionally (at least partly) motivated by public service At the entry level of politics, I feel this is actually true. And having known friends and acquaintances who have gone into low/entry level political offices I know they have been clearly motivated by trying to make things better for the common citizen. So where does it go wrong? To move up the ladder you can only really do it (with very few exceptions) by having full support of one or the other party. And to gain that support you can only do it by fully aligning with the party sponsors and contributors and their selfish interests. If you're not seen as a party team player who votes in block with everyone else, you won't have the support you need to gain higher offices. So either you burn out and leave (as all my friends have) or you stay at low level political positions where you can do some good, but very little influence. That's why all the top-level politicians are so clearly thoroughly extremely corrupt, because you couldn't possibly get to that level any other way.