In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Policy Break -- Continuum, Redux | Main | Amazon Humorist »

September 06, 2002

Policy Break -- Continuum, Reredux

Friedrich --

In our different ways we're both nibbling around the edges of an irksome question.

Setup: Given that politics, like any other field, wants to expand; given that any individual or party that succeeds in the field will tend strongly to be one that is seen by the field to be promoting the field's own interests; given that, let's face it, anyone who goes into politics is likely to be driven by a taste for power (and whose attitude towards power, whatever the surface rationale, is generally "More!")...

How then can those of us whose preference is to see the political realm minimized and the political grasp frustrated ever expect that anyone in politics (any individual, any party) should ever represent our side? In working for our best interest, he'd be working against his own.

A subset of this question: how to explain that a few people over the years (G. Washington, for instance) seem to have done more or less that? (Ie., worked in the best interest of the larger organism, not his own particular component thereof.)

Can political progress, if by progress you mean a freeing-up of individuals from the reach of politics, ever occur from within the political realm itself? I haven't the foggiest, myself. But I'd hate to have to depend on altruism and/or luck.

All of which explains my general voting strategy: vote for whoever seems likely to do the least damage.



posted by Michael at September 6, 2002


Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?