Extremes of any kind are rarely good but an exception can be made for "extremely rich". Extremism is a synonym for fanaticism, unreasonableness and unrealistic. When you trim the edges of opposite extremes, it's called compromise, reasonableness and realistic. In war, one side must win: in politics, both sides must win. Opposing views are good because no one point of view is owner of all good ideas. When your opponent has a good one, don't steal it, embrace it.
The art of politics requires that in the end, the people must benefit from actions taken.. The most reasonable way to do this is to do what the people want done. Politicians tend to do things which are more beneficial for themselves than for the people they represent and this is why they are held in such low esteem. Much of what they do would be better left undone.
Each of us thinks our views are the "right" ones but some of us must be right and the others ,then, must be wrong. How are we to discover who is right and who is wrong? Only the actions taken will prove definitely which side was right, but where action is required, we have decided that the majority should decide the rightness or wrongness of a question or action. In theory, because we decided among ourselves that the majority should decide, the minority should support and not subvert the majority view, Good sports and all that.
The theory seems to makes perfect sense but is unrealistic. People are not like that. At the end of an athletic competition, no matter who wins, both sides shake hands and go home: in politics, the losing side sharpens its arrows and knives and plots a counter attack. It is this knowledge which prevents the reasonable compromises described above. Why, if you know your opponent will not submit to defeat but will still try to hurt you, would you give any quarter in the peace negotiations?
The victims of these political wars are the people. We are the collateral damage, expendable. The victors, the politicians, have acted out the play and, at the end of the day, enjoy a cast party backstage and exchange gifts.
The art of politics requires that in the end, the people must benefit from actions taken.. The most reasonable way to do this is to do what the people want done. Politicians tend to do things which are more beneficial for themselves than for the people they represent and this is why they are held in such low esteem. Much of what they do would be better left undone.
Each of us thinks our views are the "right" ones but some of us must be right and the others ,then, must be wrong. How are we to discover who is right and who is wrong? Only the actions taken will prove definitely which side was right, but where action is required, we have decided that the majority should decide the rightness or wrongness of a question or action. In theory, because we decided among ourselves that the majority should decide, the minority should support and not subvert the majority view, Good sports and all that.
The theory seems to makes perfect sense but is unrealistic. People are not like that. At the end of an athletic competition, no matter who wins, both sides shake hands and go home: in politics, the losing side sharpens its arrows and knives and plots a counter attack. It is this knowledge which prevents the reasonable compromises described above. Why, if you know your opponent will not submit to defeat but will still try to hurt you, would you give any quarter in the peace negotiations?
The victims of these political wars are the people. We are the collateral damage, expendable. The victors, the politicians, have acted out the play and, at the end of the day, enjoy a cast party backstage and exchange gifts.
No comments:
Post a Comment