> Our political team is completely immune from this effect because our team is morally superior, more intelligent and better smelling than those people.
You would do well to familiarize yourself with Hannah Arendt, rather than just repeat generalities.
> Do you not see how your position could be interpreted in a negative way by the very people you intend to malign?
Again, politics aren't people; I can hate the game but not the players [1], who are also human beings with their own lives and issues. How personally you're taking this says more about you than me or the argument, which I'd recommend you reflect on as we both go touch some grass.
> Politics is not about foisting your vision onto everyone else, despite the current rhetoric in the US.
The only paragraph I agree with. But I agree strongly!
Politics is about consensus and horse-trading, and they are much superior to winning and making the other side miserable (for a short while, until they get the chance to do the same)
>>> The issues most people deal with in their everyday lives aren't important enough to motivate political action.
Save for the fact that their life is completely shaped by politics.
I like your analysis a lot, but I don't like your conclusion. Because ultimately, humans make politics, so one can influence them. In french there's a saying : if you don't care about politics, then politics will take care of you...
> Englightenment idea that politics somehow operates on the basis of disinterested rational persuasion and public debate is clearly nonsense.
This is the ideal to work toward than a law. The enlightenment has helped us progress toward this so politics isnt just a wrestling match with divine rule forever after.
>Not playing politics doesn't make you wiser or smarter, it just makes you a schmuck, because someone that plays politics will come around and eat your lunch.
That's not an argument to play politics. That's an argument as to why the system is fundamentally flawed.
> No need for politics, in this case mathematically dictated incentive structures will decide who wins.
Whenever I see a statement like this I smile because that's what politics is[1]. If many people decide to do something based on their interests (rather than, say, being forced to leave their homes because of an erupting volcano) -- that's politics. Thing is, people who say they hate politics usually don't know what it is, and the result is that they just do politics badly. You can't not have politics in any social structure -- it is an inherent process in any kind of social interaction. Whenever one person tries to convince someone to do something, or to reach any sort of an agreement -- that's politics by definition. Whether the incentive are mathematical (though they never really are when it comes to humans) or not doesn't matter. Politics is the process by which a decision -- any decision -- is eventually taken by a group.
Quote: "Recipe for success: under-promise and over-deliver."
I beg to differ. All I have to do is look at any, I mean ANY, country regardless of east/west culture/region and see that the politicians are always over-promise and under-deliver. You want a recipe for success? Become a politician, if you have the stomach for it (I, for one, don't).
> 92. You have vanishingly little political influence and every thought you spend on politics will probably come to nothing. Consider building things instead, or at least going for a walk.
For those of us fortunate enough to live in more or less functioning democracies, this is very bad advice. Consider what our lives would be like if everyone thought this way. Instead of trying to ignore politics, maybe if you spend a lot of time thinking about it you should consider getting involved at a local level instead. Then you can be part of the solution instead of burying your head in the sand.
> Politics always exists in a context and one can't make rational decisions in politics without that context.
You can act outside of political historical context and I would go so far as to recommend it wholly. This kind of "context" (which is human ascribed) has no bearing on acting rationally. Pay attention to consequence borne by data, not past intent.
> I think our society suffers greatly because people don't know history.
I'm not sure how that applies to something that has circumstantial relevance, like past political conditions.
> But the best way to have a future is to be part of a team that values progress over politics, ideas over territory and initiative over decorum.
I am not being too cynical in thinking that this doesn't exist? I mean this is the core of how teams interact. Politics is reality. So is territory. Fuck decorum, though.
> All good things in politics come from vociferous arguing
I would hope you recognize the opposite. The natural inclination is to increase aggression to try again when battles are fought viciously and lost. The idea of losing as commonplace and safe is not reinforced enough. While I don't trust a single representative (very bad sign), I also don't think the arguments should be full of frothing.
>To view political opponents as primarily cynical transforms them into Machiavellian monsters, leaving no space for anything but a zero-sum battle for domination.
Yes, that is what it boils down to, at high-enough levels or over long-enough timespans.
You would do well to familiarize yourself with Hannah Arendt, rather than just repeat generalities.
> Kasparov is due for some self-reflection.
That has nothing to do with this quote.
reply