The definition of 'Politics'

Feel free to excoriate me and be as scurrilous as you wish. I'm used to it. I post on Abuzz.

Merry Andrew- Over here, in these parts, we are more interested in sharing ideas than having pissing contests.

Hmm, to me politics, in its purest form, is simply the act of governing. In practice, it is a complex system of alliances, negotiations, and compromises, where the desired outcome is maintaining the good will of the electorate, and your political party in power.

This administration forever changed the definition of "politics." c.i.

c.i.- We're talking concepts.............Why interject concrete ideas?

Oh, I don't know c.i. It's always easy to blame everything on the present administration. Or, if you're a Republican, blame everything on the Clinton administration. Both stances, to me, are cop-outs. I look back to things like the Tea-put Dome scandal and the (unwarranted) impeachment of Andrew Johnson by over-zealous -- yes! -- Democrats and the 1870s which got the nick-name of the Gilded Age, and I wonder...has American politics always had the taint of corruption and ineptitude? I tend to think so as I look at American history.

(Pheonix -- sorry, I didn't know this was a civilized political forum. Haven't posted here before because I was terrified to enter, having seen what goes on at other such forums, not just dear old Abuzz.)

Merry Andrew- I think that you will find that there is a delightful difference here. That is not to say that people don't get testy once in awhile, but what the hell. Politics is a subject about which people have strong emotions, and sometimes it gets the best of them.

Why don't you check out some of the current political threads, and you will see what I mean!

I'm talking about domestic and international politics. It was going pretty well until the supreme court decided to select our president, and everything went down hill from there. c.i. As for President Clinton, I voted for him, and still think he was a 'decent' president if you leave out his personal sex life. Hind site is most oftten 20/20, but most who criticize Clinton wouldn't have done much better - or probably much worse. c.i.

Hmmm. I've studied political sciences, was a member in some county commitees for a couple of years, worked for a member of the federal parliament and state parliament, know a minister in the UK Foreign Office ... but a definition of Politics?

I really like yours, Andrew!

"A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. " - another choice (remembering [and translating] from some old scripts).

I believe that there is one inherent problem with politics, and politicians. In order to succeed in the political system, one has to learn to "play the game".

You might have a young person, all bright eyed and bushy tailed, and wanting to make a "difference". Then he/she finds that in order to make a difference in politics, you need to be elected. In order to be elected, you need to cultivate the "right" people, which often means modifying your stances on issues, so as to please the most voters. So the first "loss" that a newbie politician has is a loss of innocence.

I don't think that I would ever have wanted to be a politician. I just can't put on a false face to people, just to create an illusion, which ALL politicians do!

I like your definition, too, Walter.

My quote is actually from "The Devil's Dictionary", as I remember now

Good point, Phoenix. You use the expression 'loss of innocence.' I think that's quite correct, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, a loss of integrity often goes along with that loss of innocence. Very few -- if any -- would-be politicians can withstand the pressures of their party, in addition to the pressures from their constituency, and stay true to their early vision of actually doing something worthwhile.

Merry Andrew- You are so right about the "loss of integrity" which I implied, but didn't spell out in my post.

I have often mused that many of our politicians are definitely not the "best and the brightest" that our country has to offer. The reason is, I believe (and this refers to politicians of ALL parties) that really bright, thoughtful, committed people, as a general rule, don't choose politics as a career. The price that they would have to pay, in terms of their convictions and ideals, is too high!

In addition to "best and the brightest" they must also have integrity that doesn't get lost in the politics of influence. c.i.

OK, here comes bloody Pollyanna.

I am very concerned about the extent to which the job of being a politician is held in contempt.

These people DO help run the place (as any politician will tell you, the extent to which any democratic government is actually in charge of things is probably a great deal less than they like to think, what with the other powerful forces around) and to consider them automatically and as a tropism or reflex as without any integrity or intelligence seems to me to be acting to limit the type of person who will go into politics, and potentially to abrogate our responsibility to be aware of and involved in the processes of our governing.

It certainly IS a job which is subject to many compromises and disappointments, and opportunities to become cynical and blase - not least of which is constant vilification by the people you represent, which DOES have an effect upon our pollies - at least it does upon Australian ones - and the culture of cynicism and blame which surrounds this and many other pursuits.

Another thing which I find concerning, while I am raving, is the tendency by those who are actively interested in politics, and who have chosen sides, to demonise political opponents and resort to debate of vilification and dehumanisation - occasionally, to be sure, there IS the odd semi-demon, but generally we be all people together - just with some different ideas and with different interests..

This demonization, both of politicians generally, and of opposing ones in particular, seems to me to be a most primitive thing - I do not know if there is more of it around now, or if I just notice it more because I have friends who are running the place, or because I visit boards like this.

I certainly do notice, when for my sins I have to go and talk to community groups, an odd culture of complaint, (as one author has called it). By this I mean that groups have a tendency to pick a group to blame everything on - whether it be politicians, "the welfare", mental health services, teachers - the list goes on and on. If challenged rationally, I notice that people will obligingly go on to blame another lot of "them".

Well, much as I hate to say it, I think a lot of this stuff is projection. Maybe US politicians are more corrupt than ours? Your country has far more power - there is a lot more to be corrupted BY - and I have no direct experience or knowledge of the processes of politics, or of politicians, except in my own country - but my GUESS would be that yours are just people, too.

Here endeth the rant. For now.

heehee

I have posted this before, on the Ambrose Bierce thread, but perhaps it bears repeating here.

In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

The polity cannot succeed, cannot survive, without a social contract. The social contract is not simply a constitution, it is the entire body of written law, unwritten law, and social custom by which people are enabled to join together for their mutual benefit, while minimizing the possiblity of harm from willful individuals or groups. The social contract is constantly in a state of re-negotiation. Politics is the process by which this occurs in the realm of written and unwritten law. Cultural evolution and innovation are the evidence of this process in the realm of social custom. I have often, for humorous reasons, taken the line that no politician is to be trusted, and that they are not very bright. This is not, of course, true. When discussing this idea seriously, i've always taken the position that politics is a very necessary, and therefore desirable, process. Members of the House of Representatives say, wryly, that when one of their members is elected to the Senate, the intelligence of both bodies goes up. Twain remarked: "Suppose i were a member of Congress; suppose i were an idiot--but, then, i repeat myself." These sorts of things are all very humorous--but they are beside the point. Politics is the constant, necessary process of negotiating the terms by which we live in peace with one another.