Just to muse out loud for a sec ...

How much do y'all root for a party or a team in politics? Being a basically anti-political (or maybe regretfully political) person, I find myself rooting for the country, although I'm painfully aware how awful and high-minded that sounds. I figure that the Dems will tend to screw things up in some ways and the Reps will screw things up in a slightly different way. And then I try to be open to the possibility of a little something sensible getting achieved in the midst of the usual ghastliness.

I dunno, maybe that's a decent point of view, maybe it's just effective mental hygiene for myself. Maybe it's partly age, though I was never an enthusiastic political person even when young. (When I went through my more foolish phases -- anarchism and the like -- it had less to do with rooting for one team or the other and more with cheering against 'em all.)

But I'm 50 now. If you listen to political people, the world's always about to collapse -- unless their agenda gets voted in, of course. Nonetheless life goes on. We survived Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, etc., despite the doomsayers, despite how urgent various voices thought it was to vote for this or that. Which leads me to think that, 98% of the time anyway, we manage and we get by despite the best efforts of our politicians. Forgive me for thinking that most of what political people do has the goal of increasing the power of the political class. They want us to think it's all terribly urgent because if/when we do, they manage to grab ever more of the culture for themselves.

Which raises another point, that Ricpic touches on -- idealism. How important is it? I've never done well with idealism, though I recognize it plays an important part in many people's lives and ideas of things. Should we expect or want our pols to be idealistic? But doesn't it (nearly) always get everyone into terrible, over-extended trouble? Doesn't it lead inevitably to bitterness and crushed hopes?

I guess, FWIW, I tend to picture things this way: we all necessarily spend about 80% (more or less) of our time and energy attending to survival and maintenance -- "self-interest" in a loose sense. With the other 20%, we can kinda do with it what we want. Initiate something new, experience some pleasure, kick back, maybe work a bit on making life a bit better. Sometimes we just piss it away, and maybe that's OK too. Sometimes we make big damn resolutions and then fail to live up them and then spend time feeling depressed and disappointed. Sometimes we do something semi-modest and it turns out OK. Etc.

Why should we expect things to be different for the political class? Why shouldn't we expect them to spend 80% of their energy on self-interest? And why shouldn't we expect them to waste most of the other 20%? After all, nearly all of us do exactly that. (And, like I say, maybe that's OK, even if we might also wish we could do a bit better.) And maybe it's worse with the politicos, because they are after all, by definition, power-centric people.

Idealism? Hmm, does it play a role in there? Does it have to? But maybe I'm afraid of it, given the way it so often gets us into trouble. I tend to hope, to the extent I reserve any hopes at all for politics, that maybe a few modest and sensible things will get done. That tends to be about the extent of what I hope so far as my own life goes too, and I'm not sure why on earth I'd ever expect anything more majestic from anyone else, or from any other field.

Any musings from anyone else about this?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 8, 2004 11:40 AM

The problem with politics, as best I can see, is that we're told as kids that voting is the way one plays the game. Clearly, if you've ever had any dealings with even the lowest levels of government, voting on a one-at-a-time level doesn't carry any weight at all. Representative democracy is essentially an exercise in self-interested factions co-opting the general population via pre-packaged show trials called elections--in essence, the faction in power does anything it likes and says, "We kinda-sorta consulted you three years ago, so shut up and pay your taxes, Mr. Blowhard." I guess if you want to be at all serious about politics, one has to organize and thus be a faction, too--either by creating financial blocs or by creating voting blocs. Merely casting a vote in a country of 300 million--and where if necessary votes favorable to one faction or another can be imported across the border as needed (if you don't believe me, examine the roots of the current Democratic majority in California)--is nothing but a futile and fairly laughable symbolic exercise.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on July 8, 2004 12:57 PM

Idealist probably wasn't the best choice of word. What we want in a politician is someone with core principles. Problem is that those principles come up against the principle of survival, which, for a politician, is pork. Getting as much back to the folks back home in exchange for their continued votes, their support. The doing of deals - I'll vote for your pet project if you'll vote for mine - is the inevitable outcome and the dominant fact of political life. That's why government must grow, and sit - an ever increasing weight - on our heads; no matter what the campaign promises. Or should I say precisely because of the campaign promises. What a mess.

Posted by: ricpic on July 8, 2004 03:58 PM

Michael, your opposition to politics' dominance of life is a refreshing perspective, probably something I needed to hear. Nonetheless, shame on you for spreading the anti-trial lawyer nonsense on Edwards. Trial lawyers and the tort process are (coincidentally enough) a way for citizens to redress their grievances with organizations without having them filtered through the legislative process and all the compromises that entails. Attempts to paint trial lawyers as money-grubbing con artists are ultimately intended to smooth the way for lessening corporations' liability for their own malfeasance (not that trial lawyers aren't often money-grubbing con artists).

Anyway, it's one thing to be apolitical, but it helps to be at least informed enough not to get took.

Posted by: sleepnotwork on July 8, 2004 06:01 PM

FvB -- That's well-stated, that the way politics is played isn't by voting, thanks.

Ricpic -- Oy gevalt, definitely.

Sleep -- I know that's the role it's supposed to play in theory, but ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 8, 2004 07:10 PM

sleepnotwork: Edwards specialized in malpractice cases against doctors (ob/gyns) who had delivered babies who developed cerebral palsy. Perhaps you've seen "fishing commercials" from similar law firms on cable? I know we see them here all the time.

Problem is that there is NO scientifically demonstrable connection between what's done at delivery and having cerebral palsy. But hey, take a lawyer with as much natural charisma as Edwards has, toss in some "expert witnesses" who've published papers asserting that the doctors are at fault in impressive sounding journals (that are, at best, 3rd rate), beat the "look at this poor girl" drum, and PRESTO!!! $$$$$$

You'll note that he only took personal injury cases that would "look good" and not seem like ambulance chasing (cerebral palsy spun as a "delivery injury"). He talks like it wasn't a premeditated pose so as to go into politics later. My Ass.

And while I agree that overly restrictive tort limits can indeed be tool for Corporate Evil, reasonable medical malpractice tort limits are not necessarily in that boat. There are indeed rural communities that don't have sufficient doctors due to malpractice insurance costs. States that put a tort cap on med. mal. suits don't have those problems. High med. mal. insurance rates drive doctors out of practice or into more affluent urban/suburban areas.

So yeah, I used to like Edwards on first look because of his charisma, but digging deeper after his veep nomination, I find him very odious.

Posted by: David Mercer on July 9, 2004 02:02 AM

Oh, and Edwards has claimed to be "channeling" a dead girl in one of the cerebral palsy cases. That one's in the court's record, and will be a wee bit hard for the Kerry team to blot out. Karl Rove will have a frickin' field day with THAT one, esp. in the Bible Belt.

Posted by: David Mercer on July 9, 2004 02:12 AM

Don't ask me why, and maybe this is a character flaw of mine. But I'm always a wee bit suspicious of those who fight for the little guy ... and who happen to become multimillionaires in the process. Like I say, probably a deep character flaw of mine.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 9, 2004 11:52 AM

"But I'm 50 now. If you listen to political people, the world's always about to collapse -- unless their agenda gets voted in, of course. Nonetheless life goes on. We survived Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, etc., despite the doomsayers, despite how urgent various voices thought it was to vote for this or that. Which leads me to think that, 98% of the time anyway, we manage and we get by despite the best efforts of our politicians. Forgive me for thinking that most of what political people do has the goal of increasing the power of the political class. They want us to think it's all terribly urgent because if/when we do, they manage to grab ever more of the culture for themselves."

Yes, we survived. But, we're still firmly Earthbound, still driving primitive groundcars, still suffering horrible, lingering deaths at less than one century of age.

It speaks well of our Founders that they designed a system that is still the best the world has to offer despite a century of almost unrelenting bad policy and bad political and economic theories. But it could have been so much better! And it can be in the future if we can figure out how to get leaders that embrace good policy and good political and economic theories.

Which is why politics is important. Problem is, the folks with the good political and economic theories haven't yet figured out how to do politics right.

Posted by: Ken on July 9, 2004 12:40 PM

"Don't ask me why, and maybe this is a character flaw of mine. But I'm always a wee bit suspicious of those who fight for the little guy ... and who happen to become multimillionaires in the process. Like I say, probably a deep character flaw of mine."

Welll, yes, but at least they'll fight for the little guy at all. I mean, if they got that rich, then their clients typically did too, as they take a cut of the pie, so to speak.

I don't think there are a lot of politicians who can afford to fight for the little guy at all.

However, we all think we're the little guy--it's always amazing when you realize in someone else's eyes, there's someone much littler than you!

Posted by: annette on July 9, 2004 05:38 PM

Dud. Betrachtungen eines Unpolitischen was better the first time.

Posted by: Paul on July 12, 2004 04:44 PM

Ken -- That's beautifully put, but I still retain my conviction that it's wiser to think in terms of defending ourselves against politicians than in terms of investing our hopes in them. Call me Mr. Cranky ....

Paul -- Sure. But a blog posting is so much shorter ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 12, 2004 06:41 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?