The problem that arises when we elevate people into positions over us, is that we expect them to be better than us and forget that all men (and women) are created equal and none of us is perfect. Take a look at the American government: we put a singular man (ok, this time I don't have to say "or woman" yet) in a specific elevated position, demand him to solve unsolvable problems, and when he doesn't live up to our astronomical expectations and despite the 400-some-odd other men we elected in Washington, we kill him (not literally, of course, although some people who take politics wwwaaayyy too seriously, sadly, I'm sure would like to).
The problem with human leaders is that the people most qualified to lead are the same people smart enough to avoid being leaders. If you don't believe me, take in the following wise words:
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
– Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, "Be our king." But the olive tree answered, "Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and humans are honored, to hold sway over the trees?" Next, the trees said to the fig tree, "Come and be our king." But the fig tree replied, "Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?" Then the trees said to the vine, "Come and be our king." But the vine answered, "Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and humans, to hold sway over the trees?"
Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, "Come and be our king."
– Judges 9:8-14
So let me get to the main reason that I hate politics (because mainly I don't give a crap and just ignore it/them (I'm not quite sure if "politics" is plural)). Here's politics in a nutshell: people argue about problems that can't be solved, and the best we can do falls into two categories and personal preferences/priorities define which option is better and then people just continue to try to push their preferences and priorities on others and they don't have the authority to do so (basically, politics is subjective and we treat it as objective).
People may find me stupid or inconsiderate, but that's the way I feel about it. So I find politics not only annoying, but mainly immaterial (or, at least, of lesser importance than I need to worry about). I don't inform myself and I'm pretty sure I'm giving it up all together (it's probably better for the uninformed to not vote anyway).
Let the boys play their games, I'll work on bettering my own world and focusing on the true leader of my life.
Wow, interesting. I truly want to give up on politics too, but the consequences are so high. Whether its how much taxes I pay, whether I get access to birth control and other medicine for free/sheap price. I mean, you have to realize that there are a lot of people that don't have the priviledge, and live in an extra polluted area due to landfills in their neighborhood. Maybe you should find one or two key issues and focus on that.
ReplyDeleteI think the time and energy is better spent volunteering for organizations that actually do the things we'd be passionate about or, if lazy or busy, at least donate to them.
DeleteI think it's important to distinguish between "politics" and "government". I'll make the assumption that what most people mean when they say "politics" is the term "playing politics" (def: act for political or personal gain rather than from principle). On the other hand, "government" would be the institutions involved with governing a country, i.e. conducting policy, maintaining order, enforcing the rule of law, promoting the general welfare, etc. Will, it is hard to tell which of these you are attacking, and quite possibly the answer could be both.
ReplyDeleteIf what you are attacking is "playing politics" then I mostly would agree with you and think much of it is silly games that most of the citizenry should not be overly concerned about.
On the other hand, if you are trying to claim that the whole institution of "government" should be ignored by the populace because it's just where "people argue about problems that can't be solved," then I think you are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
To state the obvious, I have a feeling that there are large numbers of people in America and around the world, both past and present, that do not take the actions of government as "immaterial", i.e.
- People living in countries run by tyrants/corrupt governments that keep the population in poverty
- Slaves
- Minorities not afforded basic rights
- Potential Third World immigrants forced to remain in poor/unsafe countries because First World governments block them from migrating
- Americans without employment/healthcare
- American children in poverty
- American children that attend bad/unsafe public schools (think inner-city schools), because there is no alternative, whether due to the family's financial constraints or government-imposed barriers to private alternatives
- Countless other people living substantially worse lives due to the harmful action/inaction of government
Now, I am not saying that government can/should be counted on to solve all of the problems above by itself, but there are certainly humans' lives and well-being at stake behind all of the "political games" in Washington. Some of the problems listed above have been solved in part by policy passed in Washington, i.e. banning of slavery, poverty alleviation in America, minority rights. Others could be solved, i.e. immigration, healthcare, child hunger. To say that the well-being of the people that would benefit from passage of certain policy is "immaterial" seems wrong-headed to me.
Again, Will, I'm not 100% sure if the above accurately portrays your viewpoint, but it seemed like the implication from the blog post. Specifically, the ending sentence ("Let the boys play their games, I'll work on bettering my own world and focusing on the true leader of my life.") echoes the mindset of the (far too many) Anarchists that I personally know. It sounds nice for everyone to just say "I'll live my life and ignore politics", but these boys left alone to play their games will become a very powerful and tyrannical group of boys if the public is looking the other way.
Wow, a novel, I likey. So, I guess my main focus was on government, but politics is a large part of the problem (and I also think I was complaining about that a little).
DeleteI agree that government can be attributed to having done a few good things over time (some likely due to problems it caused). Personally, I dream of a more ideal world where people solve their own problems (not in a selfish way, but everyone is working towards solving the problems of the society as a whole). Government doesn't really have a place in that societal structure. Government only needs to exist because people are incapable of governing themselves.
But we create this government and then we're surprised when "boys left alone to play their games.. become a very powerful and tyrannical group"
Anarchists don't think like Tim said. Anarchists don't want government because its evil and everyone should run their own lives. Anarchists take it to a level Will is not taking it in this blog post (Do you not remember G-20 if you are a junior and senior?) Also, sometimes it does take government to get things done. There were a bunch of schools that refused to desegregate and it took governmental power to say "um no you have no choice"
Deleteeveryone you know still calls you "farty pants"...
ReplyDeleteI am not pitiful ;)
DeleteSuper Late, but...
ReplyDelete1 you should consider reading "The Prince" by Machiavelli
2. apparently, self-reliance is one of the founding principles of the modern Church of Satan