Politcians and hubris

[Bristol-Cruiser]

I was going to put this in the Canadian thread and focus on Trudeau but it really is much broader so here goes. I will start with our PM. It seems entirely logical for him to retire since any likely replacement is almost certainly better positioned to polish off PP and do the country a great service. For whatever personal reasons he appears not interested in this at all. Perhaps he wants to outdo his Daddy in terms of service; maybe he genuinely believes he is the best man for the job. Either reason is selfish and entirely self-serving. In any case, hubris to the max. The same situation exists in the US, where there are any number of Dems who would be stronger candidates than Biden, but he seems to have no thoughts about stepping down after one term. No point in even talking about Trump. He has no loyalty to the GOP and would not care at all if they get killed in '24 as long as he has a chance to win.He is also not remotely as bright as either JT or Biden.

 

[giegs]

I think you hit it with seeing themselves as the best person for the job. You don't generally arrive at positions of power like that without being a bit full of yourself, sometimes for good reason. Another issue is that as the tip of the spear for a political machine, they've got many people under them whose careers would be disrupted by passing the torch - as vividly demonstrated by the recent Feinstein debacle. That information environment can't be very conducive to humility and self reflection. It's a myopic cycle that needs to blow up every now and then so some other poor bastard can repeat it while droning on about how they know better this time.

 

[BeSafe]

I don't think its just politicians..

The Soft Tyranny of Modern Medicine

Compact Magazine, a radical American journal

compactmag.com

 

[Steam Flyer]

I don't think its just politicians..

The Soft Tyranny of Modern Medicine

Compact Magazine, a radical American journal

compactmag.com

View attachment 594855

Sounds like Republicans.

 

[Ishmael]

Trudeau thinks he was born to do this role. He is partially correct. He has managed to temper his father's arrogance with some humility, but falls short of Pierre's brilliance. I think he's been a decent caretaker after the ghastly reign of Harper, but both parties need new blood. Poilievre is a dung beetle.

 

[MagentaLine]

 

[giegs]

Trudeau thinks he was born to do this role. He is partially correct. He has managed to temper his father's arrogance with some humility, but falls short of Pierre's brilliance. I think he's been a decent caretaker after the ghastly reign of Harper, but both parties need new blood. Poilievre is a dung beetle.

Danielle Smith probably feels she was born to it as well. Born like this, into this, and so on.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I don't think its just politicians..

The Soft Tyranny of Modern Medicine

Compact Magazine, a radical American journal

compactmag.com

View attachment 594855

If Wise Ones don't tell plebes what to do, they might buy a gun and kill themselves!

 

[BeSafe]

When I throw on my armchair anthropologist hat and reflect if any of this is ‘new’, my inclination is to say not really. That powerful people want to stand judgment on not powerful people is a pretty old story – one of the oldest.

There is nothing so like god as a general on a battlefield.
There is nothing so like god as a surgeon in an operating room.

Power is intoxicating and, when combined with a meritocracy framework, leads inexorably to judgement. "I DESERVE these things because of MY hard work and good judgement and YOU should listen to me" seems to be unremarkable - i would dare say its the 'status quo'.

I’m an atheist but one of the most powerful stories in Christianity is the washing of the feet of the lepers. At the time, disease was tacitly considered as the physical manifestation of sin. You did something wrong – you deserve to be sick. Meritocracy in action – I live a good life and am healthy, you lead a sinful life and are sick. Duh… That judgement was a way to explain the unexplainable – the random chance of disease. And it made people feel like they had control. And, in truth, if you did live a life according to a scripture, you were less likely to have bad things happen to you – don’t kill, don’t overindulge, don’t cheat on your wife, take time off, blah blah and you did generally have less bad things happen to you. The ‘mechanics’ of religion made sense. What didn’t make sense was the ‘why’ of religion, particularly the pre-christian versions. Which is where the washing came in – it’s a recognition that if bad things happen to you, EVEN if you deserve it, there’s still redemption possible. God loves sinners too. That’s an incredibly hopeful vision and why Christianity and its variants dominated the world, particularly in the poorer parts.

The ‘American Dream’ was a hopeful experiment. That was its core - hope. The French – always some of the more hopeful artists - recognized this…

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


People do stupid things and I’ll still love them. I don’t fear people. I do fear power combined with good intentions. People expect the worst when evil people are in charge and guard against excess. They don't expect it from the good guys.

 

[Jules]

I was just thinking about the pathetically sad situation the Dems have placed themselves in with their apparent inability to offer candidates the public can actually get excited about. This speaks volumes about who they are.

Maybe because they have sold out to big money they, as a party, no longer get to decide which candidate to put forth. The candidate has to be to big money's liking.

Maybe genuine public servants know they can't break through the self-serving political corruption and therefore stay out of politics.

Whatever the reason for the pablum the Dems serve the people, nothing will improve as long as the people just continue to support them. Same with the Pubs. We have little choice short of repeatedly voting out the incumbents until these two self-serving parties either get the message or crumble.

 

[ShortForBob]

Politicians that voluntarily stand down/step aside (whether because they know they won't win another term because they or their party are no longer popular or because they feel that their party are in a strong enough to take a third term and that it's time to step aside to give new blood a go) are relatively rare.
Those that do, seem to be of a left of center persuasion.
In the Last 20 years these spring to mind.
Fidel Castro.

Lately in Aus and NZ we have had
Steve Bracks, very popular premier of Victoria (Labor)
Mark McGowan Very popular premier of Western Australia (Labor)
Jacinda Ardern, still reasonably popular PM of New Zealand (Labour)

There are probably some from the right but it does seem to be a left sort of thing.

Read it as you will.

 

[Dog 2.0]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” CS Lewis​

 

[Jules]

Politicians that voluntarily stand down/step aside are relatively rare.

For the politicians we know today, I agree. But there are those who would more accurately be called public servants. Although they, too, are rare.

I've known a few over the years. People who were truly good inside and who would have loved to help make things better for the people. But all of them, and this goes back to the 80s, told me they would never enter politics because corruption was so deep, they would get crushed.

Big money owns almost all the politicians at state and federal levels in the US. And that will not be changed by the occasional public servant being elected. And sweeping change will only happen when the voters have the guts to make it happen.

 

[ShortForBob]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” CS Lewis​

Do you ever actually read what you quote?
or more to the point, understand what you read?

That quote is referencing homosexuality

 

[Dog 2.0]

Do you ever actually read what you quote?
or more to the point, understand what you read?

That quote is referencing homosexuality

Do you understand what you read?

 

[inneedofadvice]

Do you ever actually read what you quote?
or more to the point, understand what you read?

That quote is referencing homosexuality

But the font is large and bold, does that mean nothing to you?!

 

[MR.CLEAN]

I was just thinking about the pathetically sad situation the Dems have placed themselves in with their apparent inability to offer candidates the public can actually get excited about.

I don't understand how, despite all the evidence and decades of your own observations, you still think parties 'offer candidates' to the public. Every time a party grooms, selects, offers, or otherwise makes our choices for us, that candidate gets smoked, because above all, americans do not like the small of insincerity. You don't have to look much further than Hillary or Jeb! but there are many examples through the ages.

The charisma of the candidate compared to the charisma of the opposing candidate is what wins elections, assuming typical turnout. The abililty of parties, NGOs, PACs, donors, and other stakeholders to fund and operate effective motivational and GOTV efforts is what can change the turnout enough to make winning much more likely, even by a heavily unbalanced electorate.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Do you ever actually read what you quote?
or more to the point, understand what you read?

That quote is referencing homosexuality

Also, he gets major RWNJ demerits for using a CS Lewis quote where an Ayn Rand quote would have fit.

 

[Jules]

I don't understand how, despite all the evidence and decades of your own observations, you still think parties 'offer candidates' to the public.

We all know "offer" actually means "shoved down your throat" but I didn't want my response to be focused on just that phrase, so I opted for a kinder gentler way of saying it.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

We all know "offer" actually means "shoved down your throat" but I didn't want my response to be focused on just that phrase, so I opted for a kinder gentler way of saying it.

My point is that it is a copout to bitch about 'the party', which is a chaotic, infighting mess regardless of whether you're talking about the GOP or Dems or even Libertarian party. Assuming that they can either 'fix' any problem or that they 'are' the problem is a bad idea.