The 'About the Author' page on this blog describes me as politically inert, which is accurate - to a point. I tend not to follow Canadian politics (I also tend not to follow U.S. politics, but the body politic of the great Republic to the south thrashes about so loudly that one must struggle to avoid it; Canadian politics generally quietly fade into the background when not being looked at directly), about which fact I often feel guilty. It's not that I don't have political opinions. I am so opinionated it squelches out of every rhetorical orifice when some topics come up. But every time I feel I am insufficiently informed about the country's official business and set myself to finding out what's going on, the process quickly degenerates into feelings of depression, anger, frustration, and a tendency to shout things like "You idiots couldn't legislate your way out of a paper bag!" at the newspaper.
The other problem is that, despite my deep cynicism about politicians*, assorted forms of government**, available positions on the various political spectra***, and humanity in general****, I am essentially an idealistic optimist, who hates the idea of situational ethics even as I find myself forced to use them when arguing with the Angry Engineer (we disagree politically on almost every point, but he's an extremely logical and intelligent debater who forces me to think very hard before I start spouting off), who believes whole-heartedly in the democratic process even though I'm utterly convinced that most of the people I interact with should not be trusted to tie their shoes, never mind vote on national policy, and who really feels that most people will honestly just try to be the best, most competent people they can be, even though in my professional life over the last decade I've been repeatedly hit in the face with evidence to the contrary.
Watching the three-ring circus that is politics in any democratic country is dispiriting. The appeals to emotion, the playing on social fears, the irrelevant personal attacks, and all of it to distract from the fact that both sides are just as unlikely to give a damn about the issues once elected. The way that Parliament and Congress seem to pass or reject bills on the basis of whether or not it will irritate or injure the other parties rather than because they've actually considered the benefits of such an action to the people they represent. The tendency to bury things in increasingly tangled webs of committees rather than just doing something.
As someone who tends towards the practical, I believe that politicians should be getting on with the running of the country rather than all the campaigning that they actually do. But at the same time, I recognise that the only reason they can get away with it is that we let them, and we encourage it. We're not interested in hearing boring action outlines that might take years to show results, we want the exciting song-and-dance, and woe to the politician who can't be a Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire on the campaign trail. That's ultimately the worst aspect of trying to follow politics, watching the whole process be degraded and subverted and knowing that's what my country wants.
Being wrong hurts, and it's obvious that I am, in many ways, wrong about human nature, at least in the majority of people. The cynic knows things are corrupt and broken, and works within that system. The naïf believes that the system works as intended, and fails because it doesn't. I've become the one in the middle, who watches it break down and steps back to avoid becoming entangled, which in its own way contributes to the problem.
I'm not even thinking of any incident or issue in particular (vide first paragraph, 'does not follow politics'), but I've been reading the archives at Positive Liberty, and feeling so shallow, because in addition to not being enough of a student of history or philosophy to follow Kuznicki's essays except in the most superficial way, I haven't even followed politics enough to know what he's analysing. His arguments are a pleasure to read even when his subject matter isn't; they're logical, and he's not afraid of passing some imaginary word count when brevity might detract from clarity.
Hiding my head in the figurative sand like an ostrich isn't a productive use of my intellect, so what do I do now?
* "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Douglas Adams
** "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill
*** I am, according to various extremely scientific and nuanced tests found through 45 seconds of googling, somewhere between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama, a Liberal Democrat, a Liberal, most compatible with the (American) Green Party, a Social Liberal, and a failed Canadian (a pass was 70%, I got 50%).
**** "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill again.
The other problem is that, despite my deep cynicism about politicians*, assorted forms of government**, available positions on the various political spectra***, and humanity in general****, I am essentially an idealistic optimist, who hates the idea of situational ethics even as I find myself forced to use them when arguing with the Angry Engineer (we disagree politically on almost every point, but he's an extremely logical and intelligent debater who forces me to think very hard before I start spouting off), who believes whole-heartedly in the democratic process even though I'm utterly convinced that most of the people I interact with should not be trusted to tie their shoes, never mind vote on national policy, and who really feels that most people will honestly just try to be the best, most competent people they can be, even though in my professional life over the last decade I've been repeatedly hit in the face with evidence to the contrary.
Watching the three-ring circus that is politics in any democratic country is dispiriting. The appeals to emotion, the playing on social fears, the irrelevant personal attacks, and all of it to distract from the fact that both sides are just as unlikely to give a damn about the issues once elected. The way that Parliament and Congress seem to pass or reject bills on the basis of whether or not it will irritate or injure the other parties rather than because they've actually considered the benefits of such an action to the people they represent. The tendency to bury things in increasingly tangled webs of committees rather than just doing something.
As someone who tends towards the practical, I believe that politicians should be getting on with the running of the country rather than all the campaigning that they actually do. But at the same time, I recognise that the only reason they can get away with it is that we let them, and we encourage it. We're not interested in hearing boring action outlines that might take years to show results, we want the exciting song-and-dance, and woe to the politician who can't be a Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire on the campaign trail. That's ultimately the worst aspect of trying to follow politics, watching the whole process be degraded and subverted and knowing that's what my country wants.
Being wrong hurts, and it's obvious that I am, in many ways, wrong about human nature, at least in the majority of people. The cynic knows things are corrupt and broken, and works within that system. The naïf believes that the system works as intended, and fails because it doesn't. I've become the one in the middle, who watches it break down and steps back to avoid becoming entangled, which in its own way contributes to the problem.
I'm not even thinking of any incident or issue in particular (vide first paragraph, 'does not follow politics'), but I've been reading the archives at Positive Liberty, and feeling so shallow, because in addition to not being enough of a student of history or philosophy to follow Kuznicki's essays except in the most superficial way, I haven't even followed politics enough to know what he's analysing. His arguments are a pleasure to read even when his subject matter isn't; they're logical, and he's not afraid of passing some imaginary word count when brevity might detract from clarity.
Hiding my head in the figurative sand like an ostrich isn't a productive use of my intellect, so what do I do now?
* "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Douglas Adams
** "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill
*** I am, according to various extremely scientific and nuanced tests found through 45 seconds of googling, somewhere between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama, a Liberal Democrat, a Liberal, most compatible with the (American) Green Party, a Social Liberal, and a failed Canadian (a pass was 70%, I got 50%).
**** "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill again.
Leave a comment