[dahart]

That’s so sadly cynical & pessimistic. I’m glad there are politicians who don’t feel this way, and have optimism and energy to try to build a better future. If everyone gave up, things would be awful compared to what we have now.

Politics is very difficult because people are different and myopic and concerned for themselves, that is true. But that doesn’t mean people are assholes or full of hate, we just have different points of view. We’re physically incapable of not being self-centered, we don’t have a shared consciousness, so that will never change. Politics is the art of navigating many many legitimate and different and opposing points of view. If that turns into meting out hatred, then please please get out of politics.

BTW, here’s one actual study suggesting that people in general prefer optimism in politics. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/0...

[sah2ed]

Optimism is a good outlook to maintain in life, but lets not kid ourselves as to the real purpose served by politicking.

"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." - Ambrose Bierce (The Devil's Dictionary, 1911)

No need to look further than the $50m of political spending in 2017 by FAAG [0] for regulations that would serve their interests like tax reforms, with Google leading the pack with $18m.

[0] https://www.recode.net/2018/1/23/16919424/apple-amazon-faceb...

[dahart]

> lets not kid ourselves as to the real purpose served by politicking.

The “real” purpose served by politicking? There’s no government at all without politics. Do you want no government, no shared values or resources, no services, no infrastructure, no community? What’s your ideal, and why is your ideal good for anyone other than you? (BTW, any answer to that question is political.)

“Politics is a multifaceted word. It has a set of fairly specific meanings that are descriptive and nonjudgmental (such as "the art or science of government" and "political principles"), but often does carry a connotation of dishonest malpractice.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

I have no doubt you can cherry pick some examples of bad politics. That’s irrelevant and uninteresting. I have no doubt you can find more examples of rich or famous people saying pessimistic things. Also uninteresting. There are plenty of optimistic quotes as well, and plenty of examples of expenditure on things that help people and generally do good. We spend a lot more than $50m on hospitals and roads and libraries and schools, just to name a few.

“We need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion. This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong.” - Barack Obama

“When you get together in a group, it becomes like a family, with the different personalities and the politics that comes with being in a band. It’s different than bringing something in by yourself.” - Albert Hammond Jr.

“Man is by nature a political animal” - Aristotle

“One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is you end up being governed by your inferiors” - Plato

“To err is human. To blame someone else is politics” - Hubert Humphrey

“I like to see myself as a bridge builder, that is me building bridges between people, between races, between cultures, between politics, trying to find common ground.” - T. D. Jakes

[sah2ed]

> There’s no government at all without politics.

That's a pretty loaded statement that I disagree with because it presupposes that man has only being organizing his affairs for centuries when we both know that mankind has existed for thousands of years.

Anyway, there's a real risk of talking past each other, so I'll be upfront by saying that government can be totally independent of politics -- politics is merely a means to an end and that end is governance.

How did mankind manage its affairs prior to politicking and modern-day electoral contests (democracy)?

Monarchies [0]. What I believe you are arguing for via politicking is representative leadership [1], which only became a thing in the 17th century.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_history_of_the_world

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

[dahart]

> That's a pretty loaded statement that I disagree with because it presupposes that man has only being organizing his affairs for centuries when we both know that mankind has existed for thousands of years.

I'm not sure what assumptions you're making here. Governance and politics have both existed for many many millennia, roughly as long as language has existed I'd wager.

> I'll be upfront by saying that government can be totally independent of politics

I disagree completely. The definition of the word politics is activities associated with governance. That was my point above. You're choosing to focus on a narrow and negative interpretation, and not the primary meaning of the word.

politics:noun

the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area

the activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries.

the academic study of government and the state.

https://www.google.com/search?q=politics

> How did mankind manage its affairs prior to politicking?

There is no such thing, and there never was. Politicking is the word for persuading others to join together to achieve things not possible as individuals.

I acknowledge that politicking is sometimes also used to mean grift and power grabbing and other things. But using it that way is a choice, and it doesn't represent all possible politics. In my opinion, it also doesn't represent anything close to a majority of politics either. Most politics that occur are necessary and benign or good, and only a minority are the type you're worried about.